• Japan needs to continuously assess the pace of the game.  Is Germany going to press fast and hard?  Or is it going to play a more defensive game?  Is Germany changing the pace of the game from aggressive to defensive, or defensive to aggressive?  Apart from that, what are the threats to Japan?

    The Japan “basic” open is with UK having destroyed the Japanese transport at Kwangtung, and a UK submarine at New Guinea threatening the French Indochina sea zone.  There may or may not be an industrial complex at India, UK may have sent its India Ocean fighter to the US fleet at Hawaii or the US forces at China or a fortified Buryatia.

    Japan attacks the Hawaiian Islands fleet with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber (fighter can land on Wake), hits China with loads of infantry and air, and if possible uses the Japan transport to hit Buryatia, or alternatively to move units to French Indochina.  When noncombat moves end, Japan should have three or four transports in the sea zone east of Japan, a battleship, a carrier, a fighter or two, and a destroyer.  Japan should have a stack of fighters on French Indochina, and a stack of infantry on China.

    The key points are these - first, Japan controls the sea zone east of Japan.  This allows transports to pick up and drop off from Wake, Okinawa, and Phillipines, plus Japan itself, to French Indochina and/or Buryatia.  In particular, Wake and Okinawa are important; taking infantry off the islands means Japan is using all its resources to full effect.  Dropping to Buryatia is the fastest way for Japan to put pressure on Moscow.  Dropping to French Indochina is the fastest way for Japan to put pressure towards Caucasus and Africa.

    Japan controls 6 units on Japan, 1 on Okinawa, 1 on Wake, 2 on Phillipines, total 10 ground.  With a transport taking 2 of those away, and building three transports, that leaves 4 transports on Japan’s second turn to transport 8 units.  Japan’s third turn requires a second turn build of six ground units plus either an industrial complex, another transport or two, subs, or fighters to taste.  3 of Japan’s four transports will take the six ground units from Japan’ the 4th transport can take the Japanese infantry from East Indies (if that transport moves to French Indochina on Japan’s second turn).  Even with Japan building no ground units on its first turn, it uses its transports to full capacity through at least turn three very easily.

    Japan must absolutely control the sea zone east of Japan.  There are various Allied threats that can make it a horrible risk for Japan, so Japan must watch out for them.  For example, UK sub at Solomon Islands, UK carrier at Phillipines, UK cruiser at Kwangtung, UK fighters on Moscow (from London), UK fighter on Buryatia, UK bomber on Novosibirsk threatens a huge attack.  Battleship/carrier/fighter/destroyer can neutralize a lot, but not all, so Japan must be careful!

    Another key point is the destruction of the US carrier and fighter at Hawaii.  The carrier and fighter can form a base of US operations in the Pacific, jumpstarting US’s development against Japan.  Even though Japan has huge power to fight against US development in the Pacific, destroying US’s carrier and fighter frees Japan to move its forces towards Africa and the Mediterranean.

    Another key point is a stack of Japanese infantry on China.  The bigger the stack, the more potential Japan has to push to Sinkiang next turn, from where it can hit Kazakh and Novosibirsk, which are valuable territories and that pressure Moscow.

    Another key point is a destroyer in the sea zone east of Japan.  A destroyer can chase subs away; without Allied subs threatening Japan’s fleet, Japan is free to move its battleship and carrier elsewhere.  (So long as the Allies don’t have an air threat in range of course!)

    The final key point is Japanese fighters on French Indochina.  From here, they can reach and land on Caucasus or Ukraine.  If Germany presses into those territories, Japan can use those fighters to reinforce those positions.  That doesn’t mean Japan can be stupid about reinforcement.  For example, if Germany tries to hold Ukraine with an obviously inadequate force, that would still be inadequate with the addition of Japanese fighters, Japan shouldn’t throw itself under the bus.  (On the other hand, even if Japanese fighters are destroyed, if it ends up being costly enough for the Russians, it can still be worth it.  Understanding when Japanese fighters should be put at risk and the pacing of Germany’s attack is key!)

    That’s the “basic” open of destroyer / three transports.  There are slight variations, like when UK takes French Indochina or Borneo on UK1; Japan can use the Japanese transport to retake the territory along with appropriate other moves.

    The game then changes depending on Allied moves.

    If the Allies built an India industrial complex, on Japan’s second turn, they can dump a load of units to French Indochina, and retreat the units from China to French Indochina.  This usually means abandoning Manchuria to Russia, but it’s worth the quick control of an industrial complex on India.  Alternatively, Japan can let UK and Russia waste resources trying to protect India, while Japan trades territory with Russia at Manchuria/Buryatia.

    If the Allies built a US Pacific fleet, Japan can build fighters or subs starting on its second turn, along with cheap infantry.

    If the Allies are bailing out of Asia, Japan can build an industrial complex soon to add momentum to Japan’s attack.

    The other Japan opens are industrial complex/2 transports (for a moderately heavy press, but less freedom of Japan’s fleet), and double industrial complex.  If Germany’s game is superdeveloped, Japan may choose to ignore the Hawaii Islands fleet attack to use the cruiser support shot on Buryatia.

    Comments -

    1.  I would only build double industrial complex, or industrial complex/2 transports in case of early extreme pressure by Germany.  Typically that means something like Germany managed to capture both West Russia and Caucasus on G1, and Russia has nothing but infantry and a tank or two to fight with.  Typically in such situations I’d ignore Hawaiian Islands in favor or putting maximum early pressure on Russia.

    2.  Against an industrial complex in India and/or Sinkiang, I tend to bulk up at French Indochina and let Russia make gains in the north.  Japan can put a lot of pressure against the India industrial complex very quickly, and once the India IC falls, Japan’s progress usually cannot be stopped.  This is particularly the case with German fighter reinforcement.

    It is possible for India to be well protected, and Japan to be horribly pressured quite early, in which case quick capture of the India IC is perhaps no longer possible.  But if Germany has been playing properly, Germany’s position in Europe should be amazingly strong.  There is absolutely no way for the Allies to put extreme pressure on Japan without making sacrifices elsewhere.

    3.  Against a US fleet, I tend to start with submarine and infantry builds on Japan’s second turn, and get a German fighter on a Japanese carrier as soon as possible to stop US destroyer blocks.  What typically happens is if US tries to press too hard too fast, I’ll smack them down with cheap subs.  If US takes a little time, I’m developing in Asia with infantry and air.  US will typically go to Solomons, from where it can threaten East Indies, Borneo, and Japan.  If Japan takes up position at French Indochina sea zone, that helps protect East Indies and Borneo; Japan can often be protected by infantry/fighters.  The game basically becomes one of Japan staying out of reach of the US fleet, but forcing US’s fleet to stay away from Japan’s fleet, grinding US’s progress in the Pacific to a halt while Japan and Germany continue to press on Russia.

    Hobbes favors Japanese fighters over subs if I understand correctly, which makes a lot of sense, because Jap fighters can be used to bolster Japan itself, can be used for additional support in Asia, and have the freedom to move to Europe to bolster German positions.  My counterargument is that a battle against the US navy becomes far more costly for Japan if Japan has no cheap sub fodder, and if Japan doesn’t start on subs right away, it won’t have them in position to hit US’s navy when they’re needed.  On the balance, I think the theory for air support is more sound than the theory for sub support, though.

  • '12

    Hobbes favors Japanese fighters over subs if I understand correctly, which makes a lot of sense, because Jap fighters can be used to bolster Japan itself, can be used for additional support in Asia, and have the freedom to move to Europe to bolster German positions.  My counterargument is that a battle against the US navy becomes far more costly for Japan if Japan has no cheap sub fodder, and if Japan doesn’t start on subs right away, it won’t have them in position to hit US’s navy when they’re needed.  On the balance, I think the theory for air support is more sound than the theory for sub support, though.

    Subs versus air units is a good debate in this scenario.  Early subs keeps the US fleet at bay but eventually, the US has to overpower the Japanese fleet so this will occur eventually.  So the balance I seek is enough subs to keep the US fleet at bay for awhile and force expensive US fleet builds but not too much that when eventually the Japanese fleet runs you lack enough fighter support to defend the Japanese mainland.  I tend to over invest in subs during the mid-game to make up for not enough early sub production.


  • Re:  early sub buys:  Even when Japan does sub buys early, against a normal US push, Japan will have to switch to fighters starting probably J4 or J5, to help threaten US fleet away from Borneo/East Indies.  (At that point sub buys won’t have an immediate effect, since newly placed subs can’t reach the sea zones around those islands.  But fighters can land on carriers, so can make it.)  Fighter buys also double to help protect Japan from invasion.

    Re:  US overpowering the Japanese fleet:  In practical terms, the US chases the Japs out of the Pacific and into the Indian.  From there, US controls the waters around Japan, preventing new naval purchases and preventing Japan from offloading ground units from Japan into mainland Asia.  US also tries to set up ICs at Borneo and East Indies for added momentum, or tries to control and/or build ICs on the Asian mainland (although such ICs shouldn’t show up until after US establishes dominance of the sea.  Ideally UK gets one of Borneo or East Indies or India for an industrial complex.

    In the meantime, Japan keeps its fleet and air in reserve.  Ideally Germany will capture Moscow, then reinforce Japan by recapturing coastal territories, and adding to Japan’s navy/airforce (industrial complexes at Anglo-Egypt and/or India), allowing Japan to push back in the Pacific.

    This is the balance of the situation.  If Japan builds early fighters (not subs), it can help Germany out a lot, but collapses a bit faster in the Pacific (not much though), and has a much nastier time trying to push the Allies out of the Pacific.  If Japan builds early subs, it slows the collapse in the Pacific a bit, and can push the Allies out of the Pacific with less trouble, but cannot help Germany.

    The theory supporting fighters, I think, is that regardless, Japan is counting on Germany to dominate Moscow.  If that doesn’t happen, the Axis will lose anyways.  Which is why fighters are theoretically superior; they can help Germany dominate Moscow, which is the crucial situation.

    Submarine theoretical superiority comes from allowing Japan to control the waters around Japan longer, allowing it to offload more ground units from Japan to Asia, and preventing US from gaining a foothold in the Pacific.  Theoretically the added ground pressure will also contribute to the crucial situation against Moscow.

    In practical terms, I think fighters may have the edge.  Subs are very inflexible use items; fighters have huge flexibility in application.  But then again, I think KJF is unlikely to work very well in any event.


  • @Bunnies:

    The theory supporting fighters, I think, is that regardless, Japan is counting on Germany to dominate Moscow.  If that doesn’t happen, the Axis will lose anyways.  Which is why fighters are theoretically superior; they can help Germany dominate Moscow, which is the crucial situation.

    Submarine theoretical superiority comes from allowing Japan to control the waters around Japan longer, allowing it to offload more ground units from Japan to Asia, and preventing US from gaining a foothold in the Pacific.  Theoretically the added ground pressure will also contribute to the crucial situation against Moscow.

    In practical terms, I think fighters may have the edge.  Subs are very inflexible use items; fighters have huge flexibility in application.  But then again, I think KJF is unlikely to work very well in any event.

    As you said, you’re not just playing to stop the US on the Pacific/Asia but to have Germany take Moscow as quickly as possible before the US can start landing units on Asia.
    Fighters also help defend SZ60 - drop 1 carrier and you add 10 points defense to your fleet for a cost of 34 for 3 units. Add 5 subs for 30 and you have 5 defense points and 5 units but if the US doesn’t bring a destroyer when attacking then they are useless on defense against plane hits. The US doesn’t need to killl those subs, but the surface ships and transports.


  • Japanese subs are not meant to defend.  They are meant to attack.  That doesn’t mean Japan flings them away stupidly.  It means Japan holds on to the subs and moves them into position waiting for a US naval push.

    If US pushes navy fast, then Japan just kills them at low expense.  Subs are cheap.

    If US doesn’t push navy fast, Japan continues to develop in Asia.

    So that comment about Japan using subs as 5 hits with 5 defense - Japan frankly shouldn’t be leaving subs in attack range of the US in the first place, because that would be stupid.  Unless of course US was underpowered for the attack anyways, in which case it would be retroactively stupid for Japan to build subs for defense, but even stupider for US to make an underpowered attack.

    5 subs supposedly have 10 attack with sub strike, while 3 fighters have 9 attack.  But the added hits typically mean Japan’s saving fighters for later rounds of fire.

    Suppose 5 subs 4 fighters attack, with 22 attack on the first round; say they take 4 casualties on the first round so have 14 attack on the second round, and 3 casualties the second round so have 6 attack the third round, for combined 42 attack over 3 rounds.

    Suppose 7 fighters attack, with 21 attack on first round; 4 casualties leaves 9 attack on the second round, and 3 casualties on the second round leave nothing for the third round, for combined 30 attack over 3 rounds.

    That isn’t just a single point of attack difference.  That’s 12 attack points; two units worth, which can be decisive in naval battles.


  • @Bunnies:

    Japanese subs are not meant to defend.  They are meant to attack.  That doesn’t mean Japan flings them away stupidly.  It means Japan holds on to the subs and moves them into position waiting for a US naval push.

    Against a large fleet of US planes they are useless. US drops a carrier and 2 fighters off SZ52 every round and builds an airforce that can hit SZ60 while the US fleet stays out of range of the Japanese subs. Japan will have to build also carriers and fighters otherwise if it keeps investing into subs it will leave the surface ships vulnerable to an US air attack.

    The best initial buys for Japan against KJF are 1-2 destroyers or subs but the most important is to increase the total number of fighters to 8 (with the 2 carriers you can use all against the US fleet) or, better yet, add a few bombers instead of extra fighters because of their extended range. Afterwards you can adjust the Japanese buys to the US ones but every $ the US spends on subs is money that won’t be going to land or air but every $ Japan spends on fighters/bombers is money that can be used to defend Japan, attack US ships or help on Asia.

    The US most likely will achieve Pacific domination (something every Japanese player should include as part of its plans) with a KJF - the difference is to achieve with a lot of useless units (subs) laying around afterwards because the Japanese player acted smartly and refused to be baited into such a battle, preferring instead to slow down the US advance in the Pacific instead of one huge battle.

  • '12

    It doesn’t take long for Japan to amass 8 fighters to go along with the 2 starting CVs.  What do you add after this?  It does make sense that with 2 BBs, 2 loaded CVs, probably 2 DDs could be balanced with 4-6 subs.

    I like bombers for the range and having 8 fighters should be enough to defend Japan as you transition the navy away from the US threat.  But again, if you have 4-5 bombers and 8 fighters plus 2 BBs, 2 DDs you should have 4-6 subs in the mix.  The US will be able to force the Jap fleet back to the India Ocean around J4-5 as mentioned earlier.  I guess the goal should be the delay that in a smart way.  Getting to 2 CVs and 8 fighters is not a huge investment, the next plateau is 3 CVs and 12 fighters not so easy to achieve.  So maybe the threat that 2 CVs, 8 fighters, a couple of bombers and 4-6 subs is the ideal balance of delay for investment


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    It doesn’t take long for Japan to amass 8 fighters to go along with the 2 starting CVs.  What do you add after this?  It does make sense that with 2 BBs, 2 loaded CVs, probably 2 DDs could be balanced with 4-6 subs.

    I like bombers for the range and having 8 fighters should be enough to defend Japan as you transition the navy away from the US threat.   But again, if you have 4-5 bombers and 8 fighters plus 2 BBs, 2 DDs you should have 4-6 subs in the mix.   The US will be able to force the Jap fleet back to the India Ocean around J4-5 as mentioned earlier.  I guess the goal should be the delay that in a smart way.  Getting to 2 CVs and 8 fighters is not a huge investment, the next plateau is 3 CVs and 12 fighters not so easy to achieve.  So maybe the threat that 2 CVs, 8 fighters, a couple of bombers and 4-6 subs is the ideal balance of delay for investment

    The whole thing about subs is not to get excited by them. The reduced efficiency of subs on defense also works against the US while during its advance because any money spent on subs is less one unit available for defense against an attack consisting of only Japanese planes. If Japan clears the SZ of US surface ships and transports then it has fulfilled its mission of keeping the US away from Japan and the money islands for 2-3 rounds. Sure, there will be a lot of US subs around but meanwhile J can either rebuild its fleet to deal with them or get more land units on Asia, either by transport or IC.


  • I’m guessing the key point that has remained unspoken is that in a lot of games I typically plan to send Japan’s fighters to Ukraine on J2 to set Germany up for a forward position against Russia, but that Hobbes’ anti-KJF plan calls for Japan’s fighters to remain near the Asian coast.  I don’t think I’ve mentioned that part of my plan in so many words, nor do I think Hobbes has said as much for his plan in so many words.  But I think that would completely explain the discrepancies in theory and thought.

    My Japanese sub defense is like a moving crap game that’s trying not to get busted by the cops.  Japan’s transport routes to Asia shift; its ground forces shift, its navy shifts, its air force shifts, constantly everything’s running all over the place, and I do mean constantly.  Europe, Asia, all over the place.  The “cops” are superior Allied forces that keep trying to run Japan’s inferior forces down.  Although Japan’s forces are inferior overall, Japan compensates with mobility.  Japan uses its starting battleships and carriers to defend against the Allies’ “long arm of the law” (i.e. air power), while keeping its main fleet out of the main attack power of US’s fleet.  (It’s a typical Bunny thing, duck and weave, duck and weave)

    A fixed sea zone 60 defense for Japan is like a craps game on an Indian reservation.  The entire mentality is different; instead of Japan running all over the place, Japan stands in one place and uses a lot of armed security guards.  Japan is the cops here, they are the superior force.  (It’s sort of how I picture Hobbes’ typical game.  He just sort of punches you in the face; you can try to duck and weave, but he just takes a step forward and keeps punching you until you cry for momma.)

    If I were NOT sending fighters to Europe on J2, I can easily see how Jap fighters at sea zone 60 and even bombers would indeed work far better.  (But I do usually send fighters to Europe.)


  • @Bunnies:

    I’m guessing the key point that has remained unspoken is that in a lot of games I typically plan to send Japan’s fighters to Ukraine on J2 to set Germany up for a forward position against Russia, but that Hobbes’ anti-KJF plan calls for Japan’s fighters to remain near the Asian coast.  I don’t think I’ve mentioned that part of my plan in so many words, nor do I think Hobbes has said as much for his plan in so many words.  But I think that would completely explain the discrepancies in theory and thought.

    My Japanese sub defense is like a moving crap game that’s trying not to get busted by the cops.  Japan’s transport routes to Asia shift; its ground forces shift, its navy shifts, its air force shifts, constantly everything’s running all over the place, and I do mean constantly.  Europe, Asia, all over the place.  The “cops” are superior Allied forces that keep trying to run Japan’s inferior forces down.  Although Japan’s forces are inferior overall, Japan compensates with mobility.  Japan uses its starting battleships and carriers to defend against the Allies’ “long arm of the law” (i.e. air power), while keeping its main fleet out of the main attack power of US’s fleet.  (It’s a typical Bunny thing, duck and weave, duck and weave)

    A fixed sea zone 60 defense for Japan is like a craps game on an Indian reservation.  The entire mentality is different; instead of Japan running all over the place, Japan stands in one place and uses a lot of armed security guards.  Japan is the cops here, they are the superior force.   (It’s sort of how I picture Hobbes’ typical game.  He just sort of punches you in the face; you can try to duck and weave, but he just takes a step forward and keeps punching you until you cry for momma.)

    If I were NOT sending fighters to Europe on J2, I can easily see how Jap fighters at sea zone 60 and even bombers would indeed work far better.  (But I do usually send fighters to Europe.)

    I’d say I have a cops attitude regardless of the country I’m playing but that’s another matter 😉

  • '12

    Sending fighters to Europe I think is/should be a default move for Japan only to be seriously modified by a serious KJF, in that case Japan really can’t afford to fight off the US IPC investment while sending fighters away to Europe.

    Hobbes, again the consideration of Japanes subs on defense is like considering carriers to be useless because spending 70 IPC on 5 carriers is a crappy way to spend money for defense versus 60 IPC on 3 battleships.  While true that 3 battleships out fights 5 carriers, it ought not be a serious consideration as you are never going to find 5 carriers sitting there with no fighters.  Japanese subs either fight or run.  If they defend its because the battlecalculator says the US has <15% chance of winning the battle/IPC exchange so again, its not going to happen.

    Its a matter of marginal utility in my way of thinking.  With the starting Japanese fleet you add 3 fighters for the 8 fighter/2 CV tactic.  You need 1 DD for sure, you can make a decent argument for a second (1 to block and 1 to run) but not really a third and certainly not a forth.  You can make a good argument for adding a few more bombers.  The marginal utility of going from 0 to 1 bomber is huge.  Going from 1 to 2 is less and 2 to 3 is less again.  I think beyond 3-4 bombers your marginal utility is low enough to look elsewhere.  Now for subs, I think you get more marginal utility from 30 IPC by adding 5 subs versus 3 fighters when you go from 0 subs to 5 subs and you already have 8 fighters.  Now at this point its getting close to the time you can no longer project enough power to keep the US fleet away.  You either can keep them away or you run, I don’t ever see sitting when there is a 50/50 chance of winning or losing.  I think the US can afford to chance a 40% success in an offensive all out fleet battle victory more than Japan can chance a 60% success in a defensive victory.  If you can’t sit and take the punch you run duck and weave just out of reach.  Moreover, when thinking of offense you factor in 8 fighters for your 2 CVs and your bombers, the moment you plan on defense you already lose 50-70% of your punch.


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    Sending fighters to Europe I think is/should be a default move for Japan only to be seriously modified by a serious KJF, in that case Japan really can’t afford to fight off the US IPC investment while sending fighters away to Europe.

    Hobbes, again the consideration of Japanes subs on defense is like considering carriers to be useless because spending 70 IPC on 5 carriers is a crappy way to spend money for defense versus 60 IPC on 3 battleships.  While true that 3 battleships out fights 5 carriers, it ought not be a serious consideration as you are never going to find 5 carriers sitting there with no fighters.  Japanese subs either fight or run.  If they defend its because the battlecalculator says the US has <15% chance of winning the battle/IPC exchange so again, its not going to happen.

    There’s 2 meanings to the phrasing ‘subs on defense’, probably it would be easier to look at each one separately

    1. Tactical, meaning subs roll at 1 at defense and the attacker can prevent them being used as casualties by the defender (only planes, or no destroyer brought along - they can still be taken as casualties but they won’t protect the surface fleet from the planes). So yes, you’ll definitely avoid placing yourself on a position where you have to rely 100% on them to defeat an attack - which brings back the argument of a balanced mix of units, instead of focusing on planes/subs/surface ships.
    2. Operational, meaning the ability to prevent and/or destroy enemy advances. And here planes are still the kings of the board, both in range and versability - if Japan starts building mainly fighters and the US mainly subs then Japan has the advantage because its airforce gives it the ability to sink the surface ships and transports without having to worry about the subs or US destroyer blockers. Split Japan’s fleet between SZ60 and Philippines/Borneo so that you can protect SZ60 while at the same time being able to have some ships/subs ready to pounce on the US if it lands on Solomon and the longer you keep this going the better it is for the Axis. Also, when the US finally is able to move closer to Japan you can pull back those fighters to Asia or Japan itself.

    Its a matter of marginal utility in my way of thinking.  With the starting Japanese fleet you add 3 fighters for the 8 fighter/2 CV tactic.  You need 1 DD for sure, you can make a decent argument for a second (1 to block and 1 to run) but not really a third and certainly not a forth.  You can make a good argument for adding a few more bombers.  The marginal utility of going from 0 to 1 bomber is huge.  Going from 1 to 2 is less and 2 to 3 is less again.  I think beyond 3-4 bombers your marginal utility is low enough to look elsewhere.  Now for subs, I think you get more marginal utility from 30 IPC by adding 5 subs versus 3 fighters when you go from 0 subs to 5 subs and you already have 8 fighters.  Now at this point its getting close to the time you can no longer project enough power to keep the US fleet away.  You either can keep them away or you run, I don’t ever see sitting when there is a 50/50 chance of winning or losing.  I think the US can afford to chance a 40% success in an offensive all out fleet battle victory more than Japan can chance a 60% success in a defensive victory.  If you can’t sit and take the punch you run duck and weave just out of reach.  Moreover, when thinking of offense you factor in 8 fighters for your 2 CVs and your bombers, the moment you plan on defense you already lose 50-70% of your punch.

    Again the point for a mix of units - I agree that the marginal utility increases the most when you go from 0 to 1 (and I like to have 1 or 2 subs around to take out isolated targets like DD blockers). I’m not sure about the marginal utility of 5 subs being more useful than 3 fighters if you already have 8 fighters - it depend a lot on the situation on the board.


  • Great post Bunnies.

    Regarding a stack fighters in FIC - UK actually has a shot at them. Typically they can have 1 bom 1 fig and 2 or 3 inf from India against a stack of 3-4 fighters in FIC.

    This is asuming FIC was not supported with Japanese infantry.

    In this case I find it very tempting as UK, to try to hit the fighter stack (especially if it is only 3 figs) and hope to take out a couple of figs.
    Especially if Germany is relying on reinforcements in Ukraine.
    I realize it is a bit of a gamble, but the reward and the advantage of being able to retreat as the attacker makes it worth it, especially if Axis is of to a too good start.
    If Germany missed badly in Ukraine, Egypt or sz2, then I would probably use my UK planes elsewhere (hit med battleship f.i.)

    The odds for 1 round of combat 2 inf 1 fig 1 bom against 3 fig:

    Jap loses:
    0 fig: 11%
    1 fig: 40%
    2 fig: 35%
    3 fig: 13%

    UK loses:
    0 inf: 3%
    1 inf: 22%
    2 inf: 45%
    2 inf + fig: 31%


  • What I didn’t write was that I assumed in most situations that UK did not stack India.  Of course it is stupid for Japan to stack lone fighters in the range of a UK infantry/air counter.  If UK did stack India, then the Axis just have to change plans.  Of course, there is always the possibility of putting 2 infantry from Phillipines on top of the fighter stack, and a “normal” number of fighters on French Indochina should be more like four or five than three.  And Japan doesn’t HAVE to hit China with 100% of its infantry in Asia.  But I digress; more on the UK India stack in a second.

    The typical UK move to counter an early threatened Germany/Japan stack in Ukraine is UK attacking French Indochina (or at least, I would consider it typical, even though I hardly ever see it, and with good reason, because it forgoes Africa.)  But if Germany and Japan see that UK controls French Indochina at the end of UK1, they can adjust.  It’s not like Germany stacks Ukraine then UK suddenly pulls a brilliant counter that leaves Germany holding its nuts in its hand, waiting to get the hell smacked out of it by Russia.  Japan sets up the reinforcement position FIRST, then Germany commits its forces.  If Japan can’t set up the reinforcement, Germany doesn’t commit its forces to Ukraine, probably hitting Karelia instead.  So the Allies will probably end up with fast losses in Africa and a fortified German position in Karelia, instead of a fortified German/Japanese position in Ukraine, which is also decently messy for the Allies.  (Bunnies ducks and weaves, ducks and weaves)

    Re: UK stacking India - stacking India with UK typically leads to loss of control of the Suez Canal on G2, with no UK counter possible, leading to possible Japanese fleet movement through the Suez to join the German Mediterranean fleet.  Once that happens, Germany should dominate Africa.  Oh, there are tradeoffs of course.  Japan has slower development against India, Germany has slower development in Europe.  But the key is that Germany can build on local superiority of force in Africa, if it keeps building up its ground there and keeps air in Europe in range.  Germany seems to have its forces in Africa cut off, but they can regain life in Persia, where they are joined by the Japanese, for pressure against Caucasus.

    There are a bunch of Allied counters, but all of them are at least moderately risky or resource/time consuming.  Which is not to say those Allied counters are not worth considering!  But it’s not like UK stacking India is clearly superior to UK not stacking India.

    The key point, I’d say is ducking and weaving.  If your opponent lines up a strong counter against something, that inevitably involves either risk or weaknesses elsewhere.  If it’s weaknesses elsewhere, you go after those weaknesses where you can’t be powerfully countered, instead of lining yourself up where you can be powerfully countered.  If it’s risk, well, hopefully your opponent won’t get lucky.  You can’t protect yourself from all risks.  If you play conservatively and try to deny your opponent any opportunities, that will inevitably lead to retreat, loss of territory, loss of income, your opponents’ gain of income, and a tougher long term position.


  • (I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).

    Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?

    Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?

    Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).


  • @MrMerguez:

    (I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).

    Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?

    Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?

    Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).

    If India has 2 inf and 1 AA Gun I’d attack it if:

    1. The Soviets can’t retake India by blitzing armor from Caucasus and/or the J transport on SZ drops 1 inf, 1 arm on Indochina during non-combat
    2. The Allies arent’ pressuring J too hard. If Japan starts its turn with 6 Soviet inf on Buryatia and the UK fleet all round then India drops down my list of targets. I’d rather make sure I take China (or Buryatia or attack SZ52 or clear SZ37 of UK ships) than taking India.

    Preventing the UK from retaking Egypt on UK2 is usually better than going after India because as Japan you need to clear out the UK forces on the Middle East/Asia as quickly as possible since they are the ones that can do the most damage to Japan (when combined with the US/Russia)


  • @MrMerguez:

    (I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).

    Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?

    Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?

    Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).

    Next time post your own topic.  It’s better for you and better for the thread, rather than going off topic.

    The answer to your question hardly has anything to do with Japan anyways.  It is really a question about the Allies, and I don’t mean that just because you’re asking a question about UK.

    I already actually posted on the subject of India infantry some time ago, but sadly it was not clearly stated.  Not clearly stated, much like you would think there would be clearly stated signs on your Droid Razr phone.  “Do not use to cut meat and vegetables”.  I mean, look at those commercials, you would think those phones had gosu knife functionality.  You can do so many other things with your phone - watch movies, listen to music, play video games, send threatening emails to your bookie - would some simple functionality in the kitchen be too much to ask for?  I mean, look at those commercials, seriously.  But anyways dinner is absolutely ruined, I tell you.  Everything’s mashed all to hell, and that’s not how you make beef Wellington.  Now if they would just clearly state that those phones are not to be used for meat and vegetables, things would be so simple.  But they didn’t say that.  Now who’s going off topic?  I can threadjack anyone, even myself.   :evil:

    Leaving infantry on India at end of UK1 is almost always wrong.  The more you leave on there, the worse it usually is.  There are specific exceptions - there are almost always exceptions - but if you have any question about whether or not a specific case is an exception, then it isn’t an exception for you, because anyone asking such a question wouldn’t know how to follow through anyways.

    Why is the question of UK infantry on India a question for the Allies instead of the Axis?  How to put this.  Let’s say you’re a captain of a team of soccer players.  Now let’s say you come up with some strategy that involves leaving your goal completely undefended (say everyone on your team just lays down) when the opposing team has the ball.  If the other team has any sort of skill, they’re just going to score, and not worry too much about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

    So you understand, it isn’t a question of how Japan and Germany will respond to a UK1 India stack, as much of it is a question of how badly they will hurt the Allies, and why the Allies would consider a UK1 India stack in the first place.  Typically, the Axis will hurt the Allies rather a lot, so the Allies had better have some good reason for laying down on the job.

    Like, let’s say you’re that soccer coach, and everyone’s laying down, and your opponent’s about to try to score a goal, when suddenly one meter tall aliens in flying saucers appear and vaporize everyone taller than they are.  Since your whole team is laying down, the aliens ignore them.  But the opposing team is vaporized.  So you win!

    (Again, that explanation of exceptions - clearly this would be such an exception.  But if you didn’t know of an impending alien attack, then your strategy of laying down suddenly would probably not work so well, you see?)


  • @Bunnies:

    @MrMerguez:

    (I could post my own topic, but i fits in quite nicely in this discussion).

    Say UK1 retakes Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry (1 from trans-jordan, 1 from persia, 1 from india) + fighter+ bomber + cruiser. Only 2 infantry remain in India. He takes lone transport with CV (and builds atlantic fleet, say). (Under what further conditions, if any) would you consider taking india on J1 with 2 infantry from fr.-indochina + air?

    Should UK always leave 3 infantry on india then?

    Do you ever take out cruiser+transport in sz. 34 on J1 (e.g. with Battleship from sz. 37?).

    Next time post your own topic.  It’s better for you and better for the thread, rather than going off topic.

    The answer to your question hardly has anything to do with Japan anyways.  It is really a question about the Allies, and I don’t mean that just because you’re asking a question about UK.

    The underlying question is, should Japan attack India at J1 if there’s only 2 inf and 1 AA Gun.

    Leaving infantry on India at end of UK1 is almost always wrong. The more you leave on there, the worse it usually is.

    The mistake that the Allies need to avoid is to allow Japan to destroy those inf on J1 and capture the AA Gun, without any kind of retribution.
    Usually the best idea is to place 2 Russian armor in Caucasus - if the Japanese risk going after India (and the AA Gun can ruin any attack) then the Russians can retake it and meanwhile the Japanese have been delayed on the Indian corridor.
    Another possibility is to evacuate India to Persia and then retake it. It is perfectly valid but at the same time, if the UK keeps India then Japan will have more targets to hit - the more attacks it makes, the bigger the possibility that one of them will fail. Also, if the UK is placing itself to sink the German Med fleet on SZ15 on UK2 then most likely you won’t have a plane available to help those inf on Persia retake India.

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 23
  • 23
  • 9
  • 38
  • 3
  • 4
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

15.7k
Users

37.1k
Topics

1.6m
Posts