How to stop Japan in Asia



  • Hi,
    What is the best strategy for the allies to stop Japan moving forward in Asia?
    Building an IC in india or sinkiang is not safe and Russia should pay a lot attention to the Germans.
    It seems to me that the UK had to chose between Africa (move 2 inf from India tot Africa) or India.
    US are not able to stop Japan on sea in the first turns and need to help defend Russia and pressure the Germans.
    What is the key to prevent the Japs to take control in Asia and earn so many IPCs that they can strenghten their position on both land and sea?
    Greets PiM



  • I think that the best way to stop Japan in Asia is to have the uk send aid from Africa/middleast once the germans are down in Africa. Have the u.s keep japan’s attention on the pacific;destroy their transport system. Have the soviets set up a rigid defense system with infantry(withwhat infantry allowed)Keep the chinese forces aggresive on first turn, but try not to spread yourself out. keep india from falling, sinikiang, and at least the yakuts.hope this has helped!!!



  • hi,

    IMHO i think that on the first turn russia player should send one of his fighters in India. Then you use the UK transport to get the infantry on syria-iraq and then back to india. After that move the infantry in persia on india ( so india have two fighters and four infantry to defend it). Last but not least put an IC on it. Then you can pressure on french-indochina, the US can go after kwangtung and russia can take manchuria. If you’re playing against a smart japeneese players he will surely put an IC on asia mainland. Go after it !!! My expererience as shown that it’s working 4/5 (depend on the dice)to cast out japan from asia.

    Have many more nice games !!! 😄



  • the Japan player who goes through Alaska is doomed to getting raped IMHO



  • I’d check out the threads on the indian IC. I don’t think it’s that bad an idea, particularly if it is well defended by a multi-national force. If China is left alone, then you may pull a lot of American forces together into a block.
    I think it would be next to impossible to do anything to the Japanese navy without sacrificing American airforces.



  • With russia restricted it is all russia can do to defend Karelia with everything, missing a ftr for most of the game so it can be parked on India may not be the best idea.

    Why do you build a factory? The answer is obvious but is it? Why build a factory that requires 50-100 IPC of defence just to prevent it from being lost? There is justification of Jap factories but not always right away. But for the brits to spend 15 IPC, then 5 IPC on an AA, then use 4 ftrs for defense (another 48 IPC). Of course you will build tanks not infantry, but then you lose tanks instead of infantry. You will need at least 5 INF and 5 tanks just on defense for another 40 IPC, we’re over 100 IPC now just so you can build 3 tanks per round. Worse, if you want to co-operate with the US in Europe you still need to build transports and units in England. It might work for some, but I just think it’s a very expensive way to stop the Japs and the germans ought to run wild with split attention like that.

    BB



  • @BigBlocky:

    With russia restricted it is all russia can do to defend Karelia with everything, missing a ftr for most of the game so it can be parked on India may not be the best idea.

    Why do you build a factory? The answer is obvious but is it? Why build a factory that requires 50-100 IPC of defence just to prevent it from being lost? There is justification of Jap factories but not always right away. But for the brits to spend 15 IPC, then 5 IPC on an AA, then use 4 ftrs for defense (another 48 IPC). Of course you will build tanks not infantry, but then you lose tanks instead of infantry. You will need at least 5 INF and 5 tanks just on defense for another 40 IPC, we’re over 100 IPC now just so you can build 3 tanks per round. Worse, if you want to co-operate with the US in Europe you still need to build transports and units in England. It might work for some, but I just think it’s a very expensive way to stop the Japs and the germans ought to run wild with split attention like that.

    BB

    This is a discussion that has been “played out” ad nauseum in other threads. Suffice it to say that:

    1. It’s not necessary to lose 50-100 ipcs in defence
    2. and even if this did happen, it’s not about a strict trade off of unit values, but rather you are sac’ing these for time and to set the agenda for your opponant
    3. i don’t recall often having dumped 4 brit ftrs there, and they are not just for defence, however they are also a menace to the japanese navy if they have been dumped there
    4. we can build tanks, but it really depends on the way the war goes. Inf can delay the japanese just as long as tanks may, but a cobination is not so bad
    5. you will lose the factory. This WILL happen. It is an eventuallity if you play long enough. So what? The point of the factory is not to provide an aggressive force in the east. We are not going to launch an invasion of India. All we are going to do with this little pearl-of-the-british-empire is delay japanese forces from being able to too-aggressively play about in europe and asia. This whole dancing with ipc numbers i find is overdone. Certainly it’s not a bad idea when calculating out numbers for a meaningless objective, but determining the agenda for your opponants, and allowing for an extra 2-3 turns for the Americans to land on Europe is something that can’t readily be measured in so simplistic a fashion.
      Go back and read the other discussion threads. Many make a much better argument than yours against the India factory, and i’d say maybe 20% of the time it is used, and 50% of THAT time it is used properly.


  • CC, I didn’t say you would lose 50-100 IPC of equipment, read what I wrote more carefully before jumping down my throat.

    I didn’t say you put 3-4 fighters there so don’t be so defensive. The author of the thread said to put a russian fighter there, you would eventually put your 3 fighters there, that makes four, even if it didn’t you can’t jump all over me because my force mix didn’t exactly match what you would have there after 3 rounds. It’s a rough guess that is how much equipment would be there.

    I never said it was wrong to do this, just that it does tie up lots of equipment.

    As for building infantry with a new factory, I don’t doubt somebody has done it, but honestly, how often do you see people just building tanks, purty often I say.

    I never said the factory in India was wrong so relax, jeez. If you think it’s such a good idea then use it against me.

    Of course you’re right that one should not always base everything on mere IPC value of a battle. But it is often one good metric umongst several.

    I’m just curious as to why you would still build a factory if you felt you would just lose it anyways. Sure it does slow down the Japs but it speeds up the Germans. shugs Every ploy has it’s pluses and minus. But until I start to lose as the axis consistantly against the allies who use the factory in India strategy I won’t start using it. 🙂

    BB



  • @BigBlocky:

    CC, I didn’t say you would lose 50-100 IPC of equipment, read what I wrote more carefully before jumping down my throat.

    i didn’t jump down your throat. also one would likely lose the 50-100 ipcs worth of units you claim would be needed as defence when Japan became determined

    I didn’t say you put 3-4 fighters there so don’t be so defensive. The author of the thread said to put a russian fighter there, you would eventually put your 3 fighters there, that makes four, even if it didn’t you can’t jump all over me because my force mix didn’t exactly match what you would have there after 3 rounds. It’s a rough guess that is how much equipment would be there.

    not being defensive, just trying to imagine a time when i’ve had 4 ftrs there. Also didn’t “jump all over you” - just considering that 4 ftrs there might not be a bad idea. You’re a little jumpy today, aren’t you.

    I never said it was wrong to do this, just that it does tie up lots of equipment.

    true. i’m not arguing with you.

    As for building infantry with a new factory, I don’t doubt somebody has done it, but honestly, how often do you see people just building tanks, purty often I say.

    I never said the factory in India was wrong so relax, jeez. If you think it’s such a good idea then use it against me.

    taking this discussion pretty personal, aren’t we?
    and you often see people building tanks there, it may be done depending on what the allies wish to accomplish and how they think they may best delay the Japanese plans. You were right previously when you said that the UK player would just lose tanks instead of infantry. I believe that if you use the UK factory as a stalling tactic, this is exactly why you build inf there - put the extra cash into UK ftrs and boats

    Of course you’re right that one should not always base everything on mere IPC value of a battle. But it is often one good metric umongst several.

    I’m just curious as to why you would still build a factory if you felt you would just lose it anyways. Sure it does slow down the Japs but it speeds up the Germans. shugs Every ploy has it’s pluses and minus. But until I start to lose as the axis consistantly against the allies who use the factory in India strategy I won’t start using it. 🙂

    one always builds units that one feels they will lose. the point is to lose them strategically.



  • ad nauseam, Latin, to the point of disgust. Perhaps not the term one uses in a friendly conversation. Frankly, if the topic I was writing about makes you disgusted then don’t read it or comment about it. shrugs I don’t like terms like ‘ad nauseam’ when it’s used towards what I write. I’ll take it personally every time. But I’m over it now.

    BB



  • you really have to relax. this kind of ruminating is not going to help your stomach at all.
    Here is prolly fewer than half the discussions on the subject. the first and last several are most specific:

    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1608
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1576
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1472
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1509
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1299
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1366
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1374
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1303
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1204
    http://axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=994&

    the term “ad nauseum” was obviously not meant as an insult, but rather as “just an expression”. Sorry if you took it personally. I just wanted to inform you that this has been discussed (“disgusted”? nope) before and there is a lot of fodder on both sides.



  • I’ve read through all the same arguments already but thanks for pointing them out again. So, it’s been discussed enough in your opinion and we ought not waste our time talking about the factory in India thingee is what you’re saying. I see.

    BB



  • In the zone, I learnt from someone who could hold off the Japs in Asia solely by Russia and a few UAF’s flying to and from Kar, no Ind IC was built, and UK even retreat all inf in Ind to full press Germans in Africa.

    The strategy was simple, just hold what Rus can hold, and retreat if a territory is going to be attacked by japs. Just leave one or no inf (if there is no arm to blitz) and always set up a counter offensive force behind. Rus has to carefully allocate its small resources and setting up traps after traps (or deadzone after deadzone in Don’s essays). With one wrong move from the Japs, the progress of Japs in Asia will be slowed down by 2 turns.

    It’s pretty like the strategy using by iraq against the US, where US pushing and pushing but with no chance to massively destroy significant Iraqi forces. Except that I don’t think Iraq has the ability to launch a decisive counterstrike against the US.



  • @Morphling:

    In the zone, I learnt from someone who could hold off the Japs in Asia solely by Russia and a few UAF’s flying to and from Kar, no Ind IC was built, and UK even retreat all inf in Ind to full press Germans in Africa.

    The strategy was simple, just hold what Rus can hold, and retreat if a territory is going to be attacked by japs. Just leave one or no inf (if there is no arm to blitz) and always set up a counter offensive force behind. Rus has to carefully allocate its small resources and setting up traps after traps (or deadzone after deadzone in Don’s essays). With one wrong move from the Japs, the progress of Japs in Asia will be slowed down by 2 turns.

    It’s pretty like the strategy using by iraq against the US, where US pushing and pushing but with no chance to massively destroy significant Iraqi forces. Except that I don’t think Iraq has the ability to launch a decisive counterstrike against the US.

    this is a nice strat in the north as it forces Japan to continually ensure that its forces are consolidated. Russia and UK play the same game with UKR in the west, of course, trading dead zones with Germany. This is also why i like the odd tank in Novo.



  • I think the whole India IC thing is a moot point - it just isn’t a good strategy for UK. Better to concentrate on putting together a viable navy in UK, and funnel troops to Karelia. This works time and time again; why waste effort on the India thing? I have done that one many times, and you know what? What usually ends up happening is that, because the UK is so busy keeping India alive, they can’t help Russia fight off Germany. Germany then slips down through Syria-Iraq and threatens India on the west while Japan attacks from the east. Like a grape stuck between two boulders, India gets squished. 😞

    The rule, I find, with any strategy, is this: if you are dividing your resources fighting more than one opponent, you will lose. End of story. Any good strategy MUST focus on one country. So, the India IC option fails this test - UK is fighting Japan while Russia and maybe the US are fighting Germany.

    You might slow Japan down in the east for a while with the India IC gambit, but you end up giving Germany a free hand in Europe to put the boots to the Russian Motherland. Personally, I would only try this if I were playing an axis opponent that was inexperienced - any veteran will beat it easily. 😎



  • What is needed is a strong and ruthless Soviet-led invasion. :x
    The more territories we take in the name of Stalin the more forces we can amass 🙂
    The use of this tactic will daze and confuse the Japs 😮
    As for the germans…

    Let me worry about the germans 😎
    My fellow Commissars will not fail me in revenge of the Russio-Japanese War



  • 8)It is not necessary to try and deploy several Allied units to defend Asia in the early going of the war. The key to “stopping” Japan is to slow her rate of advance until the Allies superior development capibilities kick in. Allied units are in short supply to start the war and initially, they are better served in more crucial theatres. England’s most important objective is to secure Africa. Without Africa, England’s production will not hold up to their many responsibilities.
    Japan is forced to expand rapidly, this allows the Allies to pick and chose when and how to coordinate counterattacks. If Japan moves to quickly, their tanks can be dashed to pieces without proper reinforcments. If England secures Africa and the Allies have a fleet off of Western Europe, reinforcements can be pushed through the Middle East and Finland to help Russia fend off Japans tank advancements.



  • I believe Morphling and Jhilton’s Asia ploy is sometimes referred to as
    “setting up Dead Zones.”

    If the enemy attacks a territory s/he may succeed in taking the territory, but the occupying force will be overwhelmed by a stronger counterattack on the opponent’s next turn and the territory will be lost for the foreseeable future.

    OOOOOOOw!


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 25
  • 76
  • 18
  • 35
  • 3
  • 35
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

147
Online

14.2k
Users

34.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts