Opinions on Japan buying two ICs in J1.



  • I honestly wouldn’t have even thought of this if I hadn’t read it in another post (about nerfing Japan because he thought this was so powerful, sorry I do not remember where).

    When seeing a KGF, dropping two ICs on the mainland (FIC and Kwangtung) seems like an idea worth some consideration. I mean, if you’re only interest is to pressure Moscow from the east, this seems like a decent way to get units there quickly. 6 tanks on J2 build allows a lot of mainland options: Sinkiang (obvious), Buryatia, India, Africa, etc.

    Of course with this you would be pushing into China with starting units and probably transporting defensive units (as well as landed fighters) to FIC.

    Thoughts?



  • I think Japan needs a destroyer on J1. Also, if you want two ICs in Asia, I think you’re better off doing it in FIC and India (Kwangtung is just too far away; you’re better off buying transports than building there). Two ICs build in Asia on J1 just might tempt the US into trying a KJF strategy (which wouldn’t really be a bad thing).

    There are several other things that Japan has to do at the same time, but just talking the IC strategy, this is what I’m going to try next time:

    • J1: Buy IC for FIC; take and hold India.

    • J2: Buy IC for India, 3 infantry for FIC.

    • J3: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC.

    • J4: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; take the territory west of India with 9 units; Stage bombers and fighters for J5 attack.

    • J5: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; Knock on the Caucasus’ door with up to 3 infantry, 9 tanks, the pre-staged air units, and whatever else could make it’s way there in time (though any stragglers are probably better spent going through Northern Russia).

    I would hope by the end of G4, Germany would be next door to Moscow. Even if he can’t take it, just being there will force Russia to pick between Moscow and the Caucasus. And either way, if Russia has to chose, it falls no later than round 6.



  • @mtngoatjoe:

    • J1: Buy IC for FIC; take and hold India.

    • J2: Buy IC for India, 3 infantry for FIC.

    • J3: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC.

    • J4: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; take the territory west of India with 9 units; Stage bombers and fighters for J5 attack.

    • J5: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; Knock on the Caucasus’ door with up to 3 infantry, 9 tanks, the pre-staged air units, and whatever else could make it’s way there in time (though any stragglers are probably better spent going through Northern Russia).

    Against an experienced Russian player all armor buys are usually a waste for Japan and attacks won’t as effective.

    Example: if you have 30 IPC worth of units facing 5 infantry + 1 armor what would be the most effective force?
    Just 10 infantry would get you a 62.3% odds while 5 armor is 72.6%.
    But if you bring 2 inf, 1 art, 4 armor or 5 inf and 3 armor then you get 84.6%
    The reason? The number of attacking units involved and having infantry to use as fodder against the defender hits. With enough infantry going with the armor then the initial hits will remove units that attack with 1, while the defender loses units that defend with 2. If both sides have the same amount of casualties then the defending power will have lost more of its combat capability than the attacker.
    The same logic applies with tanks vs. infantry. For every tank taken as casualty the attacker loses 3 attack points, while the defender only loses 2. So, if you are only building armor for Japan then 2 things happen: a) your attacks won’t be as effective as with a combined mix; b) you will be trading armor against infantry on single fights, which means that the Russians will be losing 3 IPC units while Japan loses 5 IPC ones, so the net balance favors the Russians.



  • Hobbes,

    I was going to say I half agree with you. But after changing my plan slightly, I think I ended up with what you were advocating. So, change my J2 and J3 purchases, and this would be my new evil plan:

    • J1: Buy IC for FIC; take and hold India.

    • J2: Buy IC for India, 2 infantry + 1 artillery for FIC.

    • J3: Buy 2 infantry + 1 artillery for India and 3 tanks FIC.

    • J4: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; take the territory west of India with 9 units; Stage bombers and fighters for J5 attack.

    • J5: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; Knock on the Caucasus’ door with up to 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 6 tanks, the pre-staged air units, and whatever else could make it’s way there in time (though any stragglers are probably better spent going through Northern Russia).

    And don’t forget, this is a “things are going well for Japan” plan. By the time you get to J4, Japan should have a lot of income. I want to go for a knockout punch on J5 in the Caucasus, and even Japan loses, I’ve got six more tanks + all my air on J6 to finish the job.

    Now if Germany is having a hard time of things, I’d lean a little more your way, build more infantry and artillery, and wait another round to hit the Caucasus. It just depends.

    My plan is also based on the idea of Germany having a big stack on Archangle at the end of G4. This will force Russia to either defend two territories, or consolidate in Moscow on R5. But the key to this for the Axis to have an overwhelming IPC advantage against Russia. If the Axis doesn’t end Russia by J6, then the game will likely go to the Allies. Not always, but, (and what did I say before?) if, if, if…



  • @mtngoatjoe:

    I think Japan needs a destroyer on J1.

    I’m curious why it needs to be J1. You can always get 1 on J2. If US has built subs they are 2 turns from using them.



  • @Mr.Biggg:

    @mtngoatjoe:

    I think Japan needs a destroyer on J1.

    I’m curious why it needs to be J1. You can always get 1 on J2. If US has built subs they are 2 turns from using them.

    Because, there are already two Allied subs running around, plus whatever else is left of the US Pacific fleet. I make it a priority to go island hopping, starting with Borneo, but to do that, Japan needs to protect its transport And if it buys another transport (though I tend not to), it needs to protect that. Buying a destroyer on J1 gives you options for chasing down the subs earlier (never a guarantee, but I try to). This is all aimed at having my entire air force pointed at the Caucasus at the end of J4.

    I might even buy a second destroyer on J2 if the US was gettin’ froggy. If, if, if….



  • @mtngoatjoe:

    @Mr.Biggg:

    @mtngoatjoe:

    I think Japan needs a destroyer on J1.

    I’m curious why it needs to be J1. You can always get 1 on J2. If US has built subs they are 2 turns from using them.

    Because, there are already two Allied subs running around, plus whatever else is left of the US Pacific fleet. I make it a priority to go island hopping, starting with Borneo, but to do that, Japan needs to protect its transport And if it buys another transport (though I tend not to), it needs to protect that. Buying a destroyer on J1 gives you options for chasing down the subs earlier (never a guarantee, but I try to). This is all aimed at having my entire air force pointed at the Caucasus at the end of J4.

    I might even buy a second destroyer on J2 if the US was gettin’ froggy. If, if, if….

    I guess the difference would be then my indifference to the remaining subs. I just ignore them, more or less, and keep my fleet with my transports. 1 UK sub can’t do anything if you have a battleship escorting your trans.



  • @Mr.Biggg:

    I guess the difference would be then my indifference to the remaining subs. I just ignore them, more or less, and keep my fleet with my transports. 1 UK sub can’t do anything if you have a battleship escorting your trans.

    I’ve got lots of reasons for wanting a destroyer on J1, but in the end, it boils down to insurance. An enemy sub’s ability to submerge before combat means you have to make sure any units within range of the sub are sufficiently protected against a first strike sub. Is it an insurmountable problem? No. But with a J1 destroyer, Japan truly dominates the Pacific.



  • @mtngoatjoe:

    Hobbes,

    I was going to say I half agree with you. But after changing my plan slightly, I think I ended up with what you were advocating. So, change my J2 and J3 purchases, and this would be my new evil plan:

    • J1: Buy IC for FIC; take and hold India.

    • J2: Buy IC for India, 2 infantry + 1 artillery for FIC.

    • J3: Buy 2 infantry + 1 artillery for India and 3 tanks FIC.

    • J4: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; take the territory west of India with 9 units; Stage bombers and fighters for J5 attack.

    • J5: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; Knock on the Caucasus’ door with up to 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 6 tanks, the pre-staged air units, and whatever else could make it’s way there in time (though any stragglers are probably better spent going through Northern Russia).

    And don’t forget, this is a “things are going well for Japan” plan. By the time you get to J4, Japan should have a lot of income. I want to go for a knockout punch on J5 in the Caucasus, and even Japan loses, I’ve got six more tanks + all my air on J6 to finish the job.

    Now if Germany is having a hard time of things, I’d lean a little more your way, build more infantry and artillery, and wait another round to hit the Caucasus. It just depends.

    I like your new :evil: plan :evil:

    I usually really prefer to pile up infantry for Japan and send them in waves to try to force the Russians into a war of attrition on Kazakh/Novo/Persia/Evenki, only on turn 4 or 5 or 6 i switch to full armor production when the production level allows for it.



  • Regarding the 2 ICs, I just faced Japan using that strat on a 7 Powers game last night, placed on FIC/Kwantung.

    Japan didn’t attack SZ52 on its first round, so the US invaded the Solomons and placed a 2nd carrier on the water. The Japanese replied by building armor for the mainland and subs against the US.

    For rounds 2 and 3 the US played cat and mouse while making sure that Australia didn’t fall to Japan by sending fighters and also investing on subs. The turning point on the Pacific was the sinking of a Japanese Battleship and its single transport by a lucky attack made by 2 US subs. From that moment on the US gained the advantage in numbers on the Pacific… my opponent then conceded on turn 5 because Germany couldn’t break the Caucasus defense nor advance into WR.

    The revealing part was how 1 of the mainland ICs was essentially useless because there was no money for it.



  • Hobbes,

    Do you think the US went into the Pacific because of the two IC buy and the lack of a SZ52 attack, or was he going to do it anyway? How did the Russian/German front go in round 1? Do you think that played into the decision?

    If I were the US player, I don’t know if I’d go into the Pacific just because of a two IC J1 move, but if the Germans took didn’t do well and I still had my whole fleet, then I’d seriously consider it.

    Also, how lucky was that two sub attack on the battleship? At a minimum, the subs will get three shots. If the battleship doesn’t hit on the first roll, then the subs will get at least 5 shots, and they only need two hits. I know the battleship should have won, but I’m curious about the numbers.

    And speaking of subs, this is why I like to buy a destroyer on J1. It shows the US that you’re ready to fight over the Pacific if need be. I think it can be hard to hit the US on J3 if you don’t buy a destroyer on J1. If the Us builds subs on US1 or US2, Japan is much better off attacking than defending against these. Subs are pretty much fodder on defense, but significantly more threatening when they attack. I like to set it up like this (and assumes a US1 Pacific naval build):

    • J1: Buy destroyer and place in SZ 60. Take back Borneo; fight whatever other battles you need to; but always be ready to consolidate on J2.

    • J2: Depending on the number of Japanese fighters available (and the number Japan is willing to commit to the fight on J3), Japan may need to buy an aircraft carrier. A bomber may also be helpful depending on where the US fleet is. My goal for the end of J2 is to stage my fleet in SZ 51 (Wake Island) so I’m prepared to attack on J3. This staging also includes my air units.

    • J3: If at all possible, attack US fleet. Not attacking, or not being able to attack on J3 can lead to an arms race with the US. If Japan has taken Borneo, Australia, India, China, and Sinkiang, then Japan should have the money for it, but if Germany is having a hard time, then Japan must start putting pressure on Russia. And an arms race with the US just distracts from that. I think the key is to capitalize on the initial Japanese fleet size and not let the US get three rounds of builds in the water.

    In the end, I think the J1 destroyer buy gives Japan way more flexibility on J3 if the US gets froggy in the Pacific. If the US goes for a KGF, then Japan is only out 8 IPCs.



  • @mtngoatjoe (whose Japan plan follows):

    • J1: Buy IC for FIC; take and hold India.
          * J2: Buy IC for India, 2 infantry + 1 artillery for FIC.
          * J3: Buy 2 infantry + 1 artillery for India and 3 tanks FIC.
          * J4: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; take the territory west of India with 9 units; Stage bombers and fighters for J5 attack.
          * J5: Buy 6 tanks India/FIC; Knock on the Caucasus’ door with up to 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 6 tanks, the pre-staged air units, and whatever else could make it’s way there in time (though any stragglers are probably better spent going through Northern Russia). . . if Germany is having a hard time of things, I’d lean a little more your way, build more infantry and artillery, and wait another round to hit the Caucasus. It just depends.

    J1 securing India is preventable by 2 Russian infantry at Persia (that’s “the territory west of India” you refer to in the J4 step) with Russian fighters at Caucasus.  UK should also have 2 infantry on Persia at end of J1, with 2-3 fighters and 1 bomber in the area.

    J3+ lots of tanks can be premature, particularly if UK has managed to establish a Karelia/Archangel drop.  You did mention if Germany is having a hard time, that you might do otherwise.

    One thing you didn’t mention in your new “evil plan” post was your preference for a J1 destroyer.  I don’t know if that goes hand in hand with your old strategy or your new one, but it does mess with you.  I’ll post again in a second.



  • @mtngoatjoe:

    Hobbes,

    Do you think the US went into the Pacific because of the two IC buy and the lack of a SZ52 attack, or was he going to do it anyway? How did the Russian/German front go in round 1? Do you think that played into the decision?

    If I were the US player, I don’t know if I’d go into the Pacific just because of a two IC J1 move, but if the Germans took didn’t do well and I still had my whole fleet, then I’d seriously consider it.

    I was playing Allies and that’s exactly what happened. G didn’t attack SZ2 and when Japan skipped attacking SZ52 and bought the 2 ICs I went Pacific right away.

    Also, how lucky was that two sub attack on the battleship? At a minimum, the subs will get three shots. If the battleship doesn’t hit on the first roll, then the subs will get at least 5 shots, and they only need two hits. I know the battleship should have won, but I’m curious about the numbers.

    And speaking of subs, this is why I like to buy a destroyer on J1. It shows the US that you’re ready to fight over the Pacific if need be. I think it can be hard to hit the US on J3 if you don’t buy a destroyer on J1. If the Us builds subs on US1 or US2, Japan is much better off attacking than defending against these. Subs are pretty much fodder on defense, but significantly more threatening when they attack. I like to set it up like this (and assumes a US1 Pacific naval build):

    We were playing low luck so the possible outcomes for the dice are different. The 2 submarines fired and scored 1 hit, while the BB also hit. But on the 2nd round the remaining submarine hit again, immediately sinking the BB. It was a lucky attempt.



  • I think Japan is hard to discus because there are so many ifs. The only buys I can guarantee on J1 would be a destroyer and a tank. I would only buy and IC in FIC if I thought I could go through India. Whether that is possible or not depends on the Allies. The Allies may chose to make a stand in Sinkiang instead. Or maybe Russia took a pounding in round 1 and needs its infantry elsewhere. And where did the UK go? Maybe it found other uses for its bomber and/or fighters.

    My scenarios are reactions to very specific actions and results by the other players before J1 and during US1. I think I implied more rigidity in my actions in previous posts than I really have. If neither of the two scenarios I’ve discussed play out, then I think Japan needs to look at building transports and picking a route to Moscow. And I think we’ve only touched on the subjects of Japan taking Africa and the option of sending Japanese air units to Europe. But again, I think those options are simply reactions.

    If I have any philosophy for the game, it’s this: Position my forces to fight the enemy where and when I chose. Make the enemy react to me, and make tactical decisions based on strategic goals. Don’t fight battles that I can’t win, or gamble where a loss guarantees the likely loss of the game. And pray everything doesn’t go to s&!t with bad dice 🙂



  • @Hobbes:

    Regarding the 2 ICs, I just faced Japan using that strat on a 7 Powers game last night, placed on FIC/Kwantung.

    Japan didn’t attack SZ52 on its first round, so the US invaded the Solomons and placed a 2nd carrier on the water. The Japanese replied by building armor for the mainland and subs against the US.

    For rounds 2 and 3 the US played cat and mouse while making sure that Australia didn’t fall to Japan by sending fighters and also investing on subs. The turning point on the Pacific was the sinking of a Japanese Battleship and its single transport by a lucky attack made by 2 US subs. From that moment on the US gained the advantage in numbers on the Pacific… my opponent then conceded on turn 5 because Germany couldn’t break the Caucasus defense nor advance into WR.

    The revealing part was how 1 of the mainland ICs was essentially useless because there was no money for it.

    Skipping SZ52 is a mistake to me. Also having a solo BB and transport seems like a mistake, but I guess it’s hard to judge without seeing the game.



  • @MtnGoatJoe:

    The only buys I can guarantee on J1 would be a destroyer and a tank

    What do you use the tank for?



  • @Bunnies:

    @MtnGoatJoe:

    The only buys I can guarantee on J1 would be a destroyer and a tank

    What do you use the tank for?

    Don’t mind me. One of my failed New Year Resolutions is to not deal in absolutes.



  • @MtnGoatJoe:

    Don’t mind me. One of my failed New Year Resolutions is to not deal in absolutes.
    . . . (signature follows) The Perfect Axis & Allies Strategy: Position your forces to fight the enemy where and when you choose. Make the enemy react to you, and make tactical decisions based on strategic goals. Don’t fight battles that you can’t win, or gamble where a loss guarantees the likely loss of the war. And pray everything doesn’t go to s&!t with bad dice!

    :roll:

    1.  You used the tank for something.  What was that?
    2.  Re:  Your Siggy:  Bleahhahahaggahhh!

    A.  You can’t fight the enemy “where and when you choose”, or I’d choose to hit Berlin on R1 and end the game.  Do what is appropriate.

    B.  “Make the enemy react to you” is more of that empty talk people use to sound impressive.  If your opponent left an opening for you to exploit, you SHOULD react to that and exploit that opening.  That is, you should be smart, not dumb.  If you mean “make your enemy act stupidly”, I’d like to know exactly how you’re gonna do that.

    C.  Saying “make tactical decisions based on strategic goals” is more emptiness.  Tactics are one thing, strategy another.  Or are you saying you should base your strategy independent of knowledge of tactics?

    D.  If a battle was really pointless, then doing it would be stupid, so what is this about fighting battles you can’t win?  I’d say if a battle looks to be poor odds, but the gains are great, you may or may not choose to engage depending on the position.

    E.  There are appropriate times and places for gambling.  If you have a 35% chance on Berlin, with Moscow about to fall, and Japan about to land fighters in Berlin plus German control of Africa feeding infantry production cutting Allied chances of taking Berlin to 20% the following round (and less on later turns as Japanese tanks rush forwards), you SHOULD TAKE THE GAMBLE OBVIOUSLY!  If it’s the best chance you have, you SHOULD TAKE IT, GEEZ!

    F.  To sum it up, the proper strategy is to THINK and LEARN.  (Learning makes proper thinking easier).

    G.  What is this whole fixation on this “enemy”?  My only enemies are those that grab the last pork bun.  :x  Those people have to die.  But you should play with FRIENDS, ya, people that will help you learn and grow and all that nurturing stuff.  Call them opponents.  “Enemy” is just too . . . evil sounding.  :evil:



  • Bunnies,

    It was meant to be toung-in-cheek. But the way you say it, it’s not so funny. Remember, it’s just a game. The thing I like about this forum is that I learn a lot from folks such as yourself. And one of the things I’ve learned is that there are some scenarios where I wouldn’t need a tank on J1. There are a lot of times when it would be appropriate, but, not every time. I stand by my destroyer purchase.

    And you’re right about the kinds of people who spout my “philosophy”. I’ve listened to that shit for 20 years. Anyway, sorry it came across the wrong way. Several jackasses were the inspiration when I wrote it, and I thought it was funny.


  • '12

    It’s easier to type enemy then friend, one less keystroke in my books.  Has political correctness crept in?  It’s ok for the “Person who is playing against me” to be called the enemy.  I have been called far worse than “Enemy” by people who I would trust my life to, in particular when I down 3 out of 4 planes with AA shots!



  • Alright, my roommate and I just had another game with what I would called excellent Russian and US play(I was playing axis), and two IC’s were still ultimately unstoppable. Russia traded ground for a while, but in the end Japan couldn’t be held back. US devoted enough Navy to get in and take an undefended Indonesia and build an IC on it, but was retaken by Japan a couple turns later. I need to have a play by forum game against a really good allied player to show me this can really be stopped (without completely ignoring Germany). Hobbes you in?



  • I wouldn’t say I’m “a really good allied player” but I am one you haven’t played, yet.  I’ll give it a go.

    I’m free mornings US time.



  • @Mr.Biggg:

    Alright, my roommate and I just had another game with what I would called excellent Russian and US play(I was playing axis), and two IC’s were still ultimately unstoppable. Russia traded ground for a while, but in the end Japan couldn’t be held back. US devoted enough Navy to get in and take an undefended Indonesia and build an IC on it, but was retaken by Japan a couple turns later. I need to have a play by forum game against a really good allied player to show me this can really be stopped (without completely ignoring Germany). Hobbes you in?

    No play by forum for me. Sorry.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 51
  • 15
  • 7
  • 11
  • 5
  • 11
  • 18
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

42
Online

14.7k
Users

35.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts