A good Japanese Strategy



  • Hopefully, youll be playing with a reasonably good German player. You move your sub, carier. fighter, and two battle ships and wipe out the hawaiin fleet, but dont take Hawaii, its pointless. Then Load two men onto a transport and attack the Soviet Far east. With your men in manchuria attack The country next to it. (sorry, I dont have a bored with) Then, with your men in Kwangtung, attack china. Fly a bomber to help the men in far east, and a fighter to that other one. Use your troops in french indo burma to attack india. Unless Britain was stupid and built a IC in india, use the fighter to attack china. If they did build a complex, use the fighter, and the men on the philipines to attack india. You should be able to weaken severly, or kill all the men in those countries. On the next turn move the men in china to sinkaing, the men in india to persia, And countinue to harrass Russia. Attack the remaining pacific fleet. If Germany focuses on Russia (which it should) The sovies wont stand long. This Strategy is assuming your using Two hit battleships. You should buy a two transports and 4 men.



  • Unless Britain was stupid and built a IC in india,

    :huh

    …but thats the only way to hold the Japs back…



  • Trust me, an IC in India is a risky gambit for the British. If the Japanese take it, then the Allies are screwed. It’s better to transfer troops from Russia to the far East and use troops in Britain to reinforce Kerilia and other locations.



  • shouldnt this thread be moved?



  • How can Japan build “2 trns. and 4 infantry…” at a cost of 28 IPCs on turn ONE if Japan starts with only 25 IPCs?
    WE SHALL AMMEND YOUR SUGGESTION TO READ "…and 3 infantry…
    You are screwed to start with if Russia has attacked Manchuria with all its eastern forces. Oops! It gets worse if Gr. 'Brit. has moved its India forces to Attack Kwangtung.

    Of course, this just means that the Allies have cleared the battlefield of many of their units as well as all of yours. It just slows you down 2 turns or thereabouts, but leaves little to no opposition on the Asia front for Japan.



  • Me thinks, from experience, thou spreadest thineself two tinnly. One googd roll by the allies is painful…two good rolls spells too many turns to recover.OUCH!



  • Unfortunatly, you don’t have a 50% chance of winning most of your battles. Basically, most of the time you will win 1 or 2 battles and lose the rest. Hawaii is the only sure bet.

    Moving to the Axis and allies forum



  • From what I learned, Britain and Russia persuing an offensive strategy on Japan on T1 is generally a bad move. Not only are your forces at the mercy of the Japanese Navy and airforce, but once those territories are retaken, there’s nothing in the way of stopping the Japanese juggernaut.

    Same thing goes with Japan. If you’re too ambitious on the first turn then you risk Japan stalling out on later turns.


    Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much

    [ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-19 18:22 ]



  • Building an English IC in India is a bad idea if the Brits can’t hold it. However, if they can beef up India a little bit the turn they place (and get a lot of help from the USA in Asia and Africa), the IC CAN be held against the Japanese. Since the UK moves before Japan, this IC can easily become a major thorn in Japan’s side, distracting them from their moves against USSR. An IC in India is somewhat of a risk, but is hardly indefensible…

    Second, there is a very good reason to take Hawaiian Islands as well as the Sea Zone around it T1: it prevents 1 American FTR (in Eastern USA) from attacking your fleet when USA moves. Just a thought…

    Ozone27



  • Well taking Hawaii really depends on whether or not you have have 2 hit BB. With 2 hit BB you can easily take the two hits that you’ll (the Japanese) likely recieve and land your transport. However without 2 hit bb’s, who’s to take the second hit? You can sacrifice a sub, but are you willing to lose a ftr? I think that the ftr matters more than the transport since the ftr can take a hit and still defend for 4 on USA’s counterattack.



  • I’m not sure I agree with your strategy. Japan is the 4th player to play, and as such, those actions must depend on what has gone before.

    In turn 1, Russia can lump 7 INF and 1 ARM in YAK. There’s no way you can take that with the INF in MAN (chances are 7% of taking YAK)even if you use ALL 3 FGT’s and 1 BMB that can reach.

    Then I would ask you how you are going to hold BUR against the USA and UK double team?

    Then, as you’ve lost BUR, on JAP 2, you are facing IC’s in IND and SIN with two INF in KWA and 2 INF in SFE.

    How are your forces going to hold off 5 ARM per turn coming at you?

    Cheers

    Stu



  • You are forgetting that all your IC’s and ARM take up loads of money? I’m sure Japan won’t be able to hold out for long against a 2 front war (Russia from the North, USA and UK from the South). But this leaves Germany breathing room. And trust me, a German player without fear of invasion is a very dangerous thing indeed.



  • If Russia and UK use IPC’s to attack Japan, then thats that much less to attack Germany. Russia usually wont send in 7 inf to yakut to defend, that gives Germany more of an advantage. Same with UK. If it spends money on Industrys and tanks, they cant spend it on navy.



  • I personally think the Allies are best off when they designate either USA or UK to fight Japan, and the other one helps USSR against Germany. In this case, UK (if they’re the one against Japan), they can spend some money on ARM and ICs while USA uses her money to put ships in the Atlantic to help USSR and threaten Germany. If USA wants to go after Japan, UK should stick to a fleet…

    If UK can protect Africa, they will usually have enough money to put 3 ARM in India each turn AND a couple TRs in UK, provided USA lends them some protection…

    Just my thoughts…

    Ozone27



  • If you build an IPC in india, Japan will throw everything it can into india to take it right after you have placed it, before you can use it. The UK should focus on Germany and assisting russia.



  • Thats the point. Make Japan throw everything at it, while Britan only uses half it’s income. Its efficient, and gives Russia some time.



  • I don’t know. Handing a free factory to Japan in the strategically located India will come back hunting the Allies in the later stages of the games. Besides, on T2 Japan can still invade the Soviet Far East with its Navy.



  • UK can choose a time to place their prospective IC when Japan can’t immediately attack and take it all away. Yeah, putting an IC on India when Japan can “throw everything she has” at India and take it is a dumb move–but one that’s easily avoided if you just look at Japan’s current deployment.

    Ozone27



  • Well I think that a T1 or at most T2 deployment of an IC is when it would be needed most. Other then that, you still have to wait a whole turn until you can actually start producing units (ex. T3 IC, T4 production) On T2? Well Japan will have usually taken Eastern China and the Soviet Far East by then, well out of the reach of India. However it also depends if Japan ships large loads of inf. to Burma on T2. Even if UK does buy a 2 ftrs., 1 inf. (highly unlikely), India still has the chance of falling.



  • Indian IC - Why? Well, I support it for 3 reasons.

    Britain goes before Japan (as opposed to an American IC in asia)
    America’s money is better spent
    Britain can delay Japan for as many as 10 turns

    Ic on First turn, Build 3 tanks second turn. Japan could not get anything sufficient to mainland until turn 3. By then, I will have 4 tanks, 5 Infantry (2 more if Austria was evacuated in time) and a Fighter.

    Note, I evac Africa of British troops. This means the Transport is not in a Blocking position and Japan may attempt to seize India. In that case, America should build an IC in Sinkang.



  • I assume you mean “evac Australia”…

    Ozone27



  • In my humble opinion I have never seen an American player build an IC in China Sinkang. You risk Japanese take over in T2, a Japanese take over of the IC would result in a dagger poised at the heart of Russia, and it does take a huge chunk of change to defend (i fully expect a purchase of 1 maybe 2 ftrs) which combined measures to 39 IPCs. I would much rather spend those IPCs on transports and inf.

    Now time for my response on a British IC in India. First, I have no idea how you would manage to evact troops in Australia. Uk only has one transport near the Pacific which is desperately needed to transport the inf. from Syria to India. This of course makes the transport an easy target for Jap planes.

    Also the number of 4 tanks and 5 Infantry confuses me. How did you manage to procure this number. By the beginning of T3 Britain’s own forces should have 3 ARM (purchased), 1 ftr, 3 inf which were already in India. Do you think that the German would not attack Egypt on T1?

    Of course if UK does intend to build an IC in India T1, then T1 will probably be the turn that Japan usually goes after it, not T2. Now what can Japan do T1? 1 ftr from Manchuria, 2 inf and 1 ftr from Burma, 2 inf from trans. in Philippines, 1 bomber from Japan. This is a total of 4 inf., 1 ftr (the other will most likely go to attack the UK trans in the india sea), and 1 bomber? Results? Over 45 percent of the time Japan will win with 1-2 inf. remaining in India. About 25 percent of the time India will not be taken, with the other 30 percent a Japan victory.

    Now what about a T2 attack? Even a T1 attack on India can be blunted if USSR transports 2 ftrs. from the motherland to India (though you risk losing a great defense against Germany T1 if RR.

    UK should probably have the 1 ftr., 3 ARM, 5 Inf (2 from US inf from Sinkang to India) if you want to purchase 3 ARM. Hoever, Japan is by no means ill prepared. It can muster 6 inf. (4 from Burma, 2 from Kwangtung). 3 ftrs and 1 bomber (this is if you decide to bring the other 2 ftrs. to Pearl Harbor T1. Results? Once again we see a Japan victory 66% of the time. 34% percent of the time, Japan’s Air Force will be completely intact. Don’t like these odds. What you could do instead is send another 2 inf. from Japan via transport. This increases to odds at 90% victory for Japan. 56% of the time Japanese airforce will still be left intact. Of course by invading India, it hurts German in the short run as Russia still remains intact. However, with India, China completely cleared Japan can act like a true juggernaut going after Soviet Far East,the MiddleEast, and/or Sinkang T2. T3 leaves even great possibilities for Japan by adding Australia, Africa, and South Russia all to the list with Japan’s new factory in India.



  • In my personal Opinion, Japans main point in exsisting, Is to take some of the allies attention away from Germany, and to force russia into a two front war. Since Japan has a larger Pacific fleet then America does, after you deystroy the hawaiin fleet, the coastal fleet will run to panama with its tail between its legs. While japan attacks china, india and russia, this takes IPCs away that cant be used against Germany. Japan Is usually the turning point against The sovies.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 18
  • 37
  • 3
  • 10
  • 6
  • 5
  • 34
I Will Never Grow Up Games

27
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts