what Hobbes is saying is 100% true. But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia. Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak. Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.
J1 Two IC Build
-
in a KJF you want ICs.
I have seen Japan hold all their Round 1 income for Round 2 before. That was interesting. (they had a 9 IPC bid for infantry in Asia.)
-
why the sub why not 2 transports and ic if you have a 1ipc bid if not then 2tanks and 1 artillery you have 8inf in the immediate vicinity of japan that can transport in 1 turn. only 2 other unites other tan inf. that balances it out more i try to complament my tanks with inf not the other way around when it comes to transports…
We dont play with a bid though, so that lucky 1 IPC bid isnt available.
-
No bid you probably want to go transports. You’ll need the flexibility to get Japanese feet on the streets of Africa fast.
-
why the sub why not 2 transports and ic if you have a 1ipc bid if not then 2tanks and 1 artillery you have 8inf in the immediate vicinity of japan that can transport in 1 turn. only 2 other unites other tan inf. that balances it out more i try to complament my tanks with inf not the other way around when it comes to transports…
We dont play with a bid though, so that lucky 1 IPC bid isnt available.
other option waas without the bid because you said no bid before the longer 2trn,2tanks and 1 art bid was for without a bid. 2x8+2x5+4+30. the 2trn, 1ic was for with the bid. 16+15=31
-
other option waas without the bid because you said no bid before the longer 2trn,2tanks and 1 art bid was for without a bid. 2x8+2x5+4+30. the 2trn, 1ic was for with the bid. 16+15=31
I see I see.
I still like to build 3 transports or 2 and a sub (depends on kwangtung transport), since I like having 4 in the water by turn 2.
-
For me J1 is 3 TRNs and 2 Inf. I like the flexibility the trns offer. I usually buy an IC on J 2 or 3 depending on the situation. Japan has troops to start but they can’t swim to the mainland so you need transports to get them there.
-
In the game DarthMaximus and I just started, I thought long and hard about this. The situation was that the UK (Darth) pretty much moved all his asian units west, leaving 1 Inf to welcome me into India. The SZ59 TRN survived.
So I had 2 TRN and lots of land to start. I thought about 2 ICs but just bought 1 - 2 seemed like an over-commitment. I was really tempted to put the IC in Fic, with no allied units nearby, but chose Man as the safer option. Of course I don’t want to speculate about strategy too much, but this thread is very interesting to me… My only other build was 1 TRN, which on J2 will be enough to shuttle all remaining original Jap units to the mainland.
I also captured China and Bury, so Jap income is at 36, plus 7 saved from the first round. On J2, it’ll be nice to spend 43 IPCs with 1 IC on the mainland and 3 TRN in the water.
-
My goal with Japan is USUALLY:
1. If the Allies are going KJF, force the US to spend 20 IPC per 10 IPC I spend on navy and air force.
2. Put maximum NUMBERS into Asia.
3. Put maximum TANKS into Asia.
So even WITH a bid, it’ll be 3 transports and a tank for me.
2 transports 2 tanks 1 art is usually not my preference; even 2 transports 3 tanks (with bid of 1) is not my preference, because of my Axis play style - G1 infantry build, G2 infantry build, G3 tank build and earlier builds move to E Eur, G4 tank build and earlier builds move to Balkans, G5 earlier tank builds move to Balkans and infantry/tanks move to Caucasus, G6 attack Moscow. This goes together with J1 transport and infantry build, J2 landings at Manchuria, French Indochina, Kwangtung, Burytia, J3 further reinforcement of coast while J2 landings move to Ssinkiang and Yakut, J4 march towards China and Novosibirsk (probably repulsed), J5 take China and Novosibirsk, J6 attack Moscow. (Japan’s schedule isn’t as set, because the Allies can defend and attack with more flexibility in Asia, but that’s the rough timeline). Typically, the Axis don’t actually ATTACK on the sixth turn, but build up forces to hit on round seven or eight.
BUT if the Allies try to go aggro with Russia, I use transports and tanks for Germany, and mass tanks with Japan, plus strategic bombing to try to kill Moscow on R4 or R5.
–
More particulars -
It’s true that you could put 3 inf 3 tank into Asia on J2 with the latter build, but I prefer to run 6 inf 1 art 1 tank instead, going for aggressive tanks in later rounds. That’s EIGHT units opposed to SIX units.
So on J2, my fighters fly back from Pearl Harbor or the Indian and Pacific Oceans, or maybe they just continue to hang around Asia - and the J1 build lands. So on J3, I have infantry and fighters threatening Asia. Whatever I take is probably going to stay taken, because Russia won’t be eager to trade infantry for infantry (infantry on the attack vs infantry on the defense)
The other possibility is to have a few infantry and tanks and fighters threatening Asia. But then, Russia MIGHT decide to use Russian tanks to counter any early hits on China, and the decreased numbers make the possibility of a counterattack more likely - and the decreased number makes it more difficult to cover each of the China/Yakut/India routes.
(edit) to be more clear, yeah, I think that 2 trans 2 tanks plus tank or art depending on bid is solid IF the Allies tried an aggressive path. But if the Allies are turtling, I need more numbers to punch through the turtle. By the way, I do not advocate violence against turtles. Unless it gets me chicks. (/edit)
-
INF/ART combos are definitely the best initial forces for Japan to land in Asia, for about 2 turns.
After that, they face USSR counter-attacks of greater strength and shifting to INF/ARM, where the ARM races ahead to provide defensive punch to the forward INF/ART is superior.
INF/ART are GREAT for advancing across sparse terrain. But once you face strong counter-attacks, those ART are jsut over-priced INF against counter-attacks, so you need ARM to add punch to the territories you take… if you plan to hold them and not give your opponent a 15% edge in cost of units traded.
-
other option waas without the bid because you said no bid before the longer 2trn,2tanks and 1 art bid was for without a bid. 2x8+2x5+4+30. the 2trn, 1ic was for with the bid. 16+15=31
I see I see.
I still like to build 3 transports or 2 and a sub (depends on kwangtung transport), since I like having 4 in the water by turn 2.
misssed m point, why do you need a sub J1?
-
other option waas without the bid because you said no bid before the longer 2trn,2tanks and 1 art bid was for without a bid. 2x8+2x5+4+30. the 2trn, 1ic was for with the bid. 16+15=31
I see I see.
I still like to build 3 transports or 2 and a sub (depends on kwangtung transport), since I like having 4 in the water by turn 2.
misssed m point, why do you need a sub J1?
A sub purchase on J1 is a bad idea. If the US evacuates the pacific you have spent 8 IPC on a unit that is worthless. Better to wait until the US moves so you can see whether they are going to contest the pacific.
-
Japan’s navy could help in the Mediterranean though, so that sub could still be of use.
-
@froodster:
Japan’s navy could help in the Mediterranean though, so that sub could still be of use.
It will be many turns before japan could or should be in the Med, that sub would have been far more useful as a transport.
-
Just saying it’s not a total write-off.
I think I like the 1 IC 2 TRN build (or just 1 TRN if the SZ 59 TRN lived). The IC provides quick support to existing land forces (you have 1 less turn you have to look ahead to guess what you’ll need, because units end up on land the end of the turn they’re built, not the turn after. Armor built there will be in Sinkiang the next round while armor built in Japan will still be fresh off the boat in Kwangtung the next turn. A lot can happen in 2 rounds, and suddenly you realize you are stuck with the units you built 2 rounds ago. The IC just allows for more flexible reaction. And you still have the flexibility of a few TRN kicking around to scoot down to FIC or whatever if needed.
-
My personal preference is to wait until J2 before building an IC. I like to know the outcome of the China battle and what the US is going to do before I commit 15 IPC to an IC. A disaster in China can put a newly built IC in Jeapordy, and if the US is going to contest the pacific, I’d rather use the IC money for ships/planes. Plus additional transports on J1 let’s you quickly move those forces scattered on the Pacific Islands to Asia.
-
A Japanese IC on round 1 forces you to spend at least 9 IPC’s worth of infantry to keep it running at maximum. And you’re still committed to buying more TP’s to maximize Japan’s production anyway. Somewhere along that line you will lag. Guns, guns and more guns are what Japan wants. And transports first. To move the guns you already have and future guns you build to where you want them. You can never go wrong with the 2 IPC’s to Japan in the bid and build 4 transports on Japan 1. Those TP’s will be useful to you throughout the whole game. Clear off all of those free guns off the islands as soon as possible. Then, IC’s later. To build more guns. Hmmm. I’m sensing a pattern in my Japanese strategy. Oh yeah, Baby! Transports and GUNS!!! Â Tokyo Expressin’, Mt. Suribachi defendin’, MacArthur “We will return” sayin’, bonzai attackin’, Dr. Suess style GUNS! Big ones, little ones, tall ones, short ones, dog ones, cat ones and even some REALLY BIG FAT ONES! BANG! Heh heh. I love playing the Japanese.
in a KJF you want ICs.
I have seen Japan hold all their Round 1 income for Round 2 before. That was interesting. (they had a 9 IPC bid for infantry in Asia.)
Actually, in a KJF you want transports because they preform multiple roles. The US can’t do KJF alone. They need help in Asia and the UK will tip the Allies hand for KJF. Heavy Russian forces in Asia doesn’t necessarily mean KJF, but if coupled with the UK fortifying India, with or without an IC(with is ideal), and avoids counterattacking Egypt, then a KJF is probable. If you plug an IC into that equation, then you not only are comitted to defending your fleet but also defending the IC. With Japan’s meagre starting income and every IPC in Asia being continually contested, one of them will crack under the pressure and then the other will crack right along with it. Japan just won’t have the cash to defend both reliably. Transports on the other hand, will allow you to land units from Japan and the islands early to secure your foothold in Asia and also provide defense for your fleet against the US.
If I made a feint at Japan in Rus1/UK1 and Japan plopped down 1 or 2(?!) IC’s, I would definitely consider KJF. Especially if the Japanese fleet in sz52 was weak and I had the opportunity to immediately trade half their navy for the US forces available.
-
A Japan SUB is never a waste…
If it exists, USA has to consider it, whether from their ships entering the MED, or any attempts mid-game to go island hoping.But more than 1 or 2 Japan SUBs, unless you are in a KJF, is probably (pardon the pun) SUB-optimal, unless it is very late game and you are just killing enemy navy for fun.
-
Actually, America is perfectly capable of killing of Japan almost unilaterally in MOST cases.
As I’ve said. With average or better dice, you can lock Japan up with England and Russian units that normally do not move to the German front ANYWAY. And, assuming Japan went heavily to Hawaii, you can drop their capital fleet shipping to almost 50% right off the bat. (assuming again, you got at least 2 or even 3 hits in SZ 52 with 2 fighters, 1 AC, 1 Submarine, that’s not too much to hope for. 13 punch on R1, 8-11 punch on R2. vs Destroyer, submarine, battleship, AC, 2 fighters, more is usually not wise since you want SOME aircraft for Asia - normally, or to sink the British fleet scattered around the Pacific.)
So with Japan down 1 BB, 1 AC and 2+ Fighters on USA 1 and with America building a nice fleet in response, you can actually, land lock Japan. That’s why they need to have ICs in a KJF. Fleet is nice, but they’re going to be needing submarines, not transports.
-
Shame you didn;t try that in our game…
-
You didn’t go heavy enough to Pearl to make it viable, Switch.
Unless America can get a Battleship and a Carrier at Pearl, it’s not worth it. Well, not unless England held Egypt on R1, Russia got away with a 2 fighter kill in Europe almost unscathed on attack and did decent damage on counter attacks, anyway.
Suggested Topics
