Well I added Italy to my set so am using the Anniversary Edition '42 setup in which Japan goes first - but the Anniversary Edition setup still has the British units there by India. Guess I’ll just leave it alone.
It's all about Japan! SUGOI!
-
Some Japanese expressions:
Sugoi - great
Yutta - yay!
Saikou - the bestAnd here’s some Perfume, out of Japan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykt-e6xPtZU
–
I think Japan’s timing controls A&A, so I’m going to write a few hundred words about them. Now I know you probably have to pee because you’re so excited, but it’s not just going to be about Japan. It’s going to be about Japan, Germany, UK, US, and Russia. And the lessons we learn growing up in life. And maybe a puppy, because puppies are cute and increase sales.
Doubt me?
Which would you rather have? The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction? Or . . . The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction With Puppy package?
See?
–
That said, I’m going to concentrate on the strategies and tactics I employ as Japan, and what responses and preemptive measures I take as the Allies. Because let’s face it. First, if I keep on commenting on Hobbes’ play, I’m going to turn him into a paranoid wreck that stares at squirrels and pigeons. (or IS he paranoid? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5gxiOtRZY) Second, because let’s face it, I don’t know what Hobbes’ might be thinking. I only know what I’m thinking. Well, I know what I’m thinking most of the time. Some of the time. Alternate Tuesdays.
–
As Japan, I usually see a KGF (Kill Germany First) strategy. This is usually implemented by UK and US fleet builds (specifically, a UK1 carrier/2 destroyer build northeast or northwest of London, landing as many US fighters as possible. US1 build is carrier/destroyer/transport/2 tanks/1 infantry. With US’s starting cruiser, that’s a UK2/US2 fleet of 1 sub 3 destroyers 2 carriers 1 cruiser 4 fighters, which is quite sufficient in most cases. Barring that, a UK2/US2 build certainly sees a UK3/US3 landing in Africa, unless the Allies got careless with their build. A German sub build at Southern Europe can keep interesting. One thought I’ve been toying with is a G1 carrier/transport at Southern Europe. At any rate, UK and US drop infantry/tanks to Africa and storm through it, reclaiming it. They then divert to the Norway route IF Japan is pressuring Russia. If Japan is not pressuring Russia, Allies may have time to sit on the Africa chain, which means Axis lose.
Why is an “Africa chain” an Axis loss? First, the Allies need only build a single defensive fleet for west of Algeria. They should have airpower and destroyers to hit any subs sneaking up. It’s fueled by the combined UK and US economies. UK’s income is strong because it controls Africa. Only one set of transports is needed for UK, and only one set of transports for US. This means UK can put 8 ground units a turn in from London, and US 8 ground units from US (even as many as 12, but just 8 is bad enough, and leaves US income to keep building subs and fighters and more carriers to completely dominate the area in spite of German efforts). 16 units a turn march through Africa and up through the Middle East. There is just too much for the Axis to stop; Japan can’t march into the face of 16 units backed up by another 16 units backed up by another 16 units. Nor can Germany. Once the conga line reaches Caucasus, the Allies balloon outwards.
The forward wave hits around UK/US7, depending on German stall tactics. I think a German carrier and transport at Southern Europe, shuttling units to Libya, may be the way to go, combined with sub builds. The idea is that the Allies usually manage to kill the German battleship with air early, but the carrier provides a lot of staying power, especially if Allied landing zones are very restricted because of German control of Africa. Allied landing at Algeria is threatened by subs built at Southern Europe. The Allies cannot counter with just conventional carriers and minimal destroyers, because any light UK/US destroyer build can be seen by Germany and responded to with an appropriate number of subs. Eventually the Allies win by mass destroyers/subs along with their carriers, but all this delay gives Japan more time to develop, and Germany more time to storm through Africa. The Allies may divert to the Karelia/Archangel route, but Germany will simply have to move out and stall that as well.
At any rate, the Japs have to get moving. Next post - my J1 moves!
-
By J1, a lot of things could have changed. Potential loss of Borneo, potential loss of New Guinea, loss of French Indochina, almost certain loss of Kwangtung transport. You might even have changed your underwear.
Here’s some things to look out for.
1. JAPAN NEEDS TO HELP ITS BUDDY. German control of Caucasus with very light Russian forces in the area. Japan has four fighters in the area at the start of J1 that can help hold on to Caucasus. For various reasons, a German-held Caucasus at the beginning of G2 probably means game over Allies. I will not get into further detail on how Caucasus may be controlled early, or how its control is best exploited; that’s more a Germany topic.
2. ALLIES ARE FOCUSING ON YOU, PARTICULARLY UK. Good signs are UK fighter/6 Russian infantry on Buryatia. (Alternate is UK fighter on US carrier at Hawaii, or possibly China). UK bomber NOT on London (particularly Yakut, Novosibirsk, Italian East Africa or Trans-Jordan). UK sub at Solomons. UK carrier near Tokyo. UK sub at Solomons or Northwest of Australia. UK transports floating around.
Granted, you will not often see all of these, especially as a lot of these involve UK giving up power in Africa. But you may see it even in a Kill Germany First strategy, and you have a good chance of seeing it in a Kill Japan First strategy. The idea is that UK gives multiple targets to the Japanese. If the Japs split their forces to hit everything, UK inflicts more casualties. If the Japs annihilate a few targets, UK uses surviving elements to threaten a counterattack, combined with the U.S. fleet.
If you ignore the threats, UK threatens you with carrier/sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber vs navy. There’s a lot of shenanigans UK can get up to, so be careful.
3. ALLIES ARE NOT FOCUSING ON YOU. If Japan doesn’t need to help its buddy, and if the Allies did not focus on restricting Japan’s movement, Japan should run around kicking ass. This is usually the case, so this is usually what I focus J1 moves on. Sadly, this post is running a bit long, so I will write those moves in the next post.
Text walls are so intimidating . . . unless you can break it down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo
can’t touch this!
-
Japan moves, assuming Axis are focusing on Germany
J1 build: 3 transports, destroyer.
Sub, cruiser, Caroline Islands fighter, bomber to Hawaiian Islands.
East Indies fleet (not air!) whacks assorted UK naval targets if possible. Remainder of air whacks Burytia, China, and India, but only if there is resistance in the area. India may be skipped if there’s an AA gun on it. A lot of naval and ground targets may be ignored. Japan’s goal is not to take territory, but to destroy Allied units in the area, allowing it to blast through on subsequent turns. Certain targets “cannot escape”, so can be safely ignored.
Noncombat - place transports and destroyers east of Japan, joined by Caroline Islands carrier, plus couple fighters. Japan now has battleship, destroyer, carrier, and two fighters as a defensive fleet. Without a lot of Allied power in the area, and with Allied landing zones restricted with the loss of China and Buryatia, Japan can withstand a two-unit attack quite easily. So if the only threats in the area are the UK Solomons sub and, say, a UK cruiser that destroyed the Kwangtung transport, Japan does not care. They can run in and die. Or they can run away, in which Japan can run after them and kill them with fighters that land on its carrier. An early destroyer is VERY important in freeing Japan to start grabbing infantry off its islands.
J2, Japan picks up infantry from Okinawa, and drops 2 infantry to Buryatia. The other 3 Japanese transports pick up 2 infantry from Phillipines, and Tokyo infantry/tank to French Indochina. Alternative movements are possible, such as recapture of Borneo if necessary; the important things are to send 4 units towards French Indochina as quickly as possible, and send the tank with them.
This is where things start to diverge. If Germany looks like it’s completely failing to contain the Allies, I would usually build another 2 transports plus infantry with Japan, attempting to hit Allied Pacific targets quickly to increase Japan’s income at Allied expense. But Japan may want to instead build an industrial complex on the mainland for a J3 tank build, using three transports to shuttle tanks and infantry, and the fourth transport to snag spare infantry off the islands, then to be used as tank transport.
J3 is when things start to get interesting.
On J3, if you went mass transports and infantry, you will start with 4-6 infantry and transports at Tokyo, and 3 transports at French Indochina. Since you won’t have the units to fill transports, you only have 3 transports that need stick near Japan. The fourth picks up infantry from East Indies. These four will be used to maintain units from Japan next turn. 5th goes to Caroline Islands, to pick up at Solomons, then hit New Guinea next turn. 6th goes to Africa (where Japanese tank blitzing is very useful) or picks up Borneo and New Guinea infantry, emptying the islands, to hit Australia next turn, then French Madagascar, then Union of South Africa. I think I would save IPCs for an industrial complex at India. Japan’s transports can shuttle between India and the African coast with a single trip. With the industrial complex closer to the key territory of Caucasus, Japan can quickly respond to Allied moves with 3 infantry, 3 tanks, or 3 fighters, all immediately in a threatening position (rather than, say, 3 inf, tanks, or fighters at French Indochina that probably can’t do anything immediately, that have to commit to the India or Sinkiang routes, which can then be seen coming and responded to by the Allies.)
On J3, if you went industrial complex/tank, you will have an industrial complex and 2-3 tanks to work with. Your build is 9 units, that is, enough to fill three transports and produce at your industrial complex while your fourth transport scrounges for infantry on the islands. Allied resistance at any point will consist of infantry. If you run into an infantry stack at Novosibirsk, you switch targets to India. If you run into problems at India, switch to Novosibirsk. The mobility of tanks lets you do this. Using transports allows you to switch targets between India quickly as well, although you’ll have to maintain infantry reserves at Yakut, China, and French Indochina to be ready for a push, backed up by tanks. Later rounds see Japan switching to tanks ONLY, with the fourth transport moving back to help move more tanks in; extra income can be used for another transport or industrial complex. The idea is to use the mobility of tanks to break the Russians; if the Allies move to India or Novosibirsk, Germans press on Caucasus and Japan runs to the other front and breaks through.
Whether building infantry or tanks, the Japs want to press hard on Moscow, to break it before the Allies can establish an infantry chain to Kazakh/Novosibirsk. Using Japan’s fleet and running all over the place wastes a lot of time and only helps the Axis a little and hurts the Allies a little. (Particularly, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Alaska combined are only 6 IPC worth. French Madagascar is worth 1 IPC. Granted, that’s more for the Axis and less for the Allies, but the question is not IPCs in the bank, it’s whether or not Moscow is going to fall.)
For this reason, I think most of the moves here are best combined with . . . Japanese air to Europe! Yes, it’s Hobbes’ Fortress Europe plan . . . more in my next post.
-
Fortress Europe (original article by Hobbes in Article section.) - i.e. Jap air to Europe; my take.
Always remember that the Japs need to work together with the Germans.
With the Allies, working together’s more a matter of forming a plan, getting units together, and blasting through the Axis. With the Axis, working together’s more a matter of looking at how the Allies are focusing on your buddy, and exploiting holes in the Allied defense.
So for example, say the Allies are going a typical KGF with focus on Africa. That means they will have to pull resources away from India, meaning Japan can capture it faster. Say the Allies are going KJF with a focus on India. This lets Germany drive through Africa.
Supposing the Allies went KGF, Japan can use their fleet and air to move towards Germany to help out. Two battleships, two carriers, and escort is a lot. Also key, Japan can use its place in turn order to screw with optimal Allied naval strategy. Noted that Hobbes wrote a good bit on Jap airforce in Europe in his Fortress Europe strategy. Re-reading that article, I think the best point of the strategy is not clearly spelled out. I didn’t see it myself at the time, anyways. But I will spell it out here.
Usually, Allies wait until the Germans finish their turn, then move the UK fleet, then move the US fleet to reinforce. By the time Germany’s turn comes up again, Germany has to face the combined UK and US fleets. This lets UK and US switch between Norway, Karelia/Archangel, and Algeria without suffering much.
But with Japan in the area, UK moves its fleet and the US fleet gets destroyed by Japan air. Germany may then be able to destroy the weakened UK fleet on the German turn. This is no problem at all for the Allies if they keep dropping to the same target. Say if the Allies have a combined fleet dropping to Karelia/Archangel. So long as both navies stay at Karelia/Archangel, they are safe. But if the UK fleet moves from the Karelia/Archangel sea zone to drop to Norway, for example, Japan blows up the U.S. fleet, then Germany blows up the U.K. fleet. So the Allies will be stuck, without being able to receive ready reinforcements, which can be a real problem against a German sub build.
Hobbes says the Allies need to make a mistake for the Axis to capitalize on their error, which is why I discounted the idea of Japanese air to Europe. But on reflection, I think it isn’t really that the Allies need to make a mistake. The Allies are pinned in place by the Japan/German threat. The only thing for the Allies to do is to do a quick naval build so their fleets are strong enough to break away from the lock. Until then, they’re stuck in place. While they’re stuck in place, Germany has a LOT more freedom of movement. Imagine an Allied fleet at Norway. Normally, they can go to Karelia/Archangel, or threaten Western Europe, Berlin, or Eastern Europe. But with Jap air in the area, say UK makes a move. Japan obliterates U.S. UK is then stranded, and Germany blows it up in turn.
Granted, sending Jap air to Europe will not help the Japs trade territories. But I think the Japs don’t NEED to “trade” territories. They can just TAKE them. If Russia screws around with low IPC territories in the far east, that’s less resistance for Germany in the west. If Russia doesn’t screw around with those territories a lot, Japan just walks in. If Russia offers a token resistance, Japan takes and holds with a chunk of tanks. Soon, any Moscow attack will have to decide between defending Caucasus and Moscow. At that point, Japanese air can move east to Moscow (since they were on Western or Eastern Europe.)
Jap air to Europe is not without its costs, though. I think if pursuing such a strategy, the Japs need every IPC they can get to build air. But with its air going to Europe, Japan will lack hitting power at home. Maybe Japan should just send its starting air force, and build a bomber or two when possible, restricting itself to a SINGLE industrial complex expansion.
Jap fleet to Europe is a bit risky too. US builds a few subs, and Japan’s forced to break off and build defense. U.S. could even build a small fleet of transports and start grabbing islands.
Still, there are obvious pluses as well. Doing all this would disrupt US’s transport chain, and Japan would have some time to respond. (US builds subs, Japan moves all transports near Tokyo and performs Buryatia drop. US moves subs in, Japan moves all transports to French Indochina drop. US moves in again, Tokyo subs drop to Buryatia, and builds a defensive fleet. US surface ships are vulnerable to Japanese air, and as Hobbes outlined in his article, Japanese fighters can get from Western Europe to Japan in two turns (although only two at a time, it’s still pretty fast; after the US1 build Japan keeps its fighters at home and pulls the ones on the midpoint carrier back, plus moves more from Western Europe back, plus possible naval build. Next US turn sees 4 fighters plus Japan response to the original US build, probably enough to crush anything but a very serious Atlantic build that pulls the Allies away from pressuring Germany.
-
@Bunnies:
Hobbes says the Allies need to make a mistake for the Axis to capitalize on their error, which is why I discounted the idea of Japanese air to Europe. But on reflection, I think it isn’t really that the Allies need to make a mistake. The Allies are pinned in place by the Japan/German threat. The only thing for the Allies to do is to do a quick naval build so their fleets are strong enough to break away from the lock. Until then, they’re stuck in place. While they’re stuck in place, Germany has a LOT more freedom of movement. Imagine an Allied fleet at Norway. Normally, they can go to Karelia/Archangel, or threaten Western Europe, Berlin, or Eastern Europe. But with Jap air in the area, say UK makes a move. Japan obliterates U.S. UK is then stranded, and Germany blows it up in turn.
A little clarification regarding the section concerning Japan on my article. It states:
After the Japanese planes are located on W. Eur their main target should be the UK fleet since the Brits will be hard pressed for income after the loss of most of their possessions in Africa/Asia. Since J plays between the UK and US by having the planes on W. Eur allows the Axis to take advantage of any opportunities provided after the UK moves. The UK & US will then be forced to increase their naval defenses and will have severe limitations on where
they can move. One mistake can leave fleets without enough protection against the 2 fleets of Axis planes.This is derived from 1 of Fortress Europe’s objectives, namely Disrupt (or harass) Allied shipping on the Atlantic and force the US/UK to heavily invest in naval/air purchases instead of land units.. The Axis objective is not the destruction of the UK/US fleets per se, a top Allied player will play in order to avoid it, but to disrupt/harass/etc. the Allied naval moves, limiting their options (as you mentioned on your post).
If the Allies make such a mistake, great for the Axis. But more often the result is that the US/UK will establish a transport route that can’t be attacked by the Axis, effectively freezing their movements (like you mentioned). But it can work great for the Allies if they plan on dropping all of their units into the same location. A steady stream of UK/US units through Archangel and Japan might find itself in trouble on Asia.
-
Hey, Bunnies, this is just too much words for me. I am a simple man raised on the faith that tanks are strong. Though I agree with most, I think there are some minor differences.
What I do with Japan in standard KGF is based on the plan to develop pressure on russia from the East ASAP. And to do it I use 4trns shippping 4inf, 4tnk via bury. No preliminary ICs since that would only slow your march!!! Only when I have enough IPCs i use them on building another IC ussually in FIC R4. The details of the build up go like this:
1. If not feeling patricularly threatened in Pacific I build 2trns, 2art, dd J R1. I do Pearl just to kill it ussualy with cru, 2fig and bmb sacrificing the cru, if I use the sub to kill the trannie off australia, I kill the UK ships off Africa, and i do china heavy. I may take india depending on how many uk units are there, but it is not my priority. Neither is bury R1 which i may depending on how the situation on western front looks.
2. R2. I build two more trn and four tnk, I take bur as to priority. I send two trn to Frindo with 2 inf and 2 art to trade or keep India. The general idea is not to push through south or trhough sinkiang, but to have just enough there to trade them or to keep them before the FIC IC is build. You do not keep them really, you just need the IPCs so it is just fine to control them at the end of the turn. If the situation is opens you can move further to trade kazakh and novo early in the game, but the top priority is to have the 8 units flowing northern way and not expose china or fic to counter till R4. Because there will be no chance for a russian counter later.
3. R3 I move the 4tnks and all the 4 inf from OKW, WI, PI to BUR and I start the push, I buy 4inf and 4tnk and save the rest for the FIC IC to be build R4. In this way I am ussually able to take as soon as R5 Novo with about 6inf and 8tnks backed by 4inf in Yakut, 4 tnks in bury and 3 in china if i managed to build the FIC IC R4 which i usually do. This should be enough for the russkies to stop thinking about Germans and start defend Moscow. It also makes US and UK to understand that suddenly not breaking Germany but saving Moscow must be their top priority. R7 Moscow can be hit with 18tnks 10inf, and a lot of planes and Germans should have their eastern army ready to come in support. If you see, you will not make it R7 you will have to go for contesting Africa and the the long strategic tussle in which you ought to know the allies do have the better chances.
4. For all the time I have 1 trn left. And I use it in a fleet, if possible with both the BBs, to get assorted allied teritories in Pacific before turning it towards Africa. I agree it would be better to have two trannies raiding Pacific and I actually sometimes buy another one, but at the same time i really think it should not compromise a bit on the main goal which is to bring Moscow down before the strategic Allied advantage prevails.
5. I use the brilliant Hobbes idea with the jap figs and the bmb in Europe. I am trying to rush them there in the quickest possible way usually using the AC in the Indian Ocean and I manouver with them in such a way to do everything possible to prevent allies getting substantial amount of units to Moscow in time.
-
@Bunnies:
Which would you rather have? The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction? Or . . . The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction With Puppy package?
in my experience, the puppy IS the Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction.
Suggested Topics
