Japan's super economy -the end of the world?


  • So the USA goes Euro-domination because it doesn’t want to be taken hostage by the assertion that KJF is the only viable strategy these days.

    This inevitably means Japan will get to an income of ~95IPCs/turn sooner or later. Is this the end of the world?
    Personally I don’t think it is, for 3 reasons:

    • Japan can be kept out of Hawaii/Sydney indefinatly if the USA has an income roughly the same as Japan’s (not counting ANZAC).

    • Since the allies dominate Europe, the total Allied income >= total Axis income.

    • Combined with the income above, the Allies should have a stronger total military presence on the board.

    What do you guys think?

  • '17

    Japan’s income will ramp up faster than America’s if the European Axis choose to stalemate with Russia to fight off the Western Allies as long as they can.

    There are some serious risks:

    1. Japan could continually trade units with ANZAC by making small landings in Western and Northern Australia, sapping Allied strength until Japan has enough advantage to safely land a larger army. Japan can shuck men between SZ37 and Western Australia very efficiently.

    2. Japan could try to achieve enough naval dominance to convoy raid the West Coast.

    3. Japan could just build up transports and keep you guessing where they might go. The Middle East and Africa have lots of IPCs if Pacific VCs are too well guarded.

    I rarely see this style Allied play from my opponents, so it’s hard to evaluate whether or not Euro-domination is better or worse. A mostly unchecked Japan’s race to take Sydney might take longer than a mostly unchecked Germany’s race to take Moscow, but the Allies will probably be able to cope the loss of Moscow in a KJF game better than the they would the loss of Sydney in a KGF game.


  • What do you guys think?

    This inevitably means Japan will get to an income of ~95IPCs/turn sooner or later.

    Uhhh…how?

    Did China just fold?  Did UkP just focus on the middle east?  Did Anzac just stack Sydney?  Did Russia just sit and wait for the onslaught?  There are FIVE countries that can play on that side of the world…how is Japan getting 95 IPCs?  oh, they’re sitting on money - gotcha.


  • @Wheatbeer:
    I agree with the risks involved in Euro-domination. I’d consider number 3 in your list especially dangerous but number 2 not so much (easy to counter). Number 1 I don’t know. Seems dangerous over time but taking too long. Most nerve-wrecking thing I have seen so far with this allied play during the end-game is a dangerous tango between the IJN and the USN, where 1 tiny mistake will cost victory, for both sides. Mainly because of 1 fleet outmaneuvering the other…

    @AK_Grown:
    USA being involved in Euro-dominatrix indeed means yes to almost all you questions. With the USA only able to defend Hawaii, what can the others do?  
    In short, all the fancy things the allies can do against Japan are just laughed at if the USA is not going for KJF. Japan will punish each and every offensive/stalling/sapping attempt by all the tiny allies if big brother USA is not there to back them up strong enough and ensure a Japanese victory by getting  6VC’s.
    Without the USA’s full attention, Japan can do what it wants in the pacific. Take the DEI, kill China, take Calcutta, take NZ, take Madagascar and take all Russian territories east of Moscow. I’m not saying this is the end of the world for the allies but I don’t think there’s  anything the allies can do to prevent Japan from becoming this economic monster if they want to have the upper hand in Europe.

  • TripleA

    Taking Sydney is easy. Japan-> Caroline-> Australia.  It is not hard, plus you threaten Hawaii at all stages of your movement.

    If left alone Japan can win in the pacific as early as round 7.

    Never go Atlantic if Japan DOW round 1

  • '14 Customizer

    It looks like India will fall on J3 or J4 but what if India decides to back out and hide in Persia or some close-by territory? Do you continue to pursue the Indians with Japan or do you just fortify India and then move back to Japan or Australia? What happens if UK forms an offensive on Turn 6 with the fleeing Indians to recapture India after Japan’s fleet has moved back to the Pacific?

    That brings up another question how are you getting the fleet back to Japan to then move to Caroline?  Japans fleet will be in SZ 39 on J3 or J4 depending on when you decided to attack India.  Anzac can block you at SZ(37, 42 and 57) to delay another round.  Do you build another fleet in SZ6?  If so will it be strong enough to sit at Caroline if USA has a fleet at Hawaii?

    Every round you delay Japan you give the Euro-Allies more time.

  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    USA focus on Europe from the beginning is probably a bad idea.
    However, I am in the minority that doesn’t believe in “KJF”.  I like the balanced approach with USA.  
    A good Japan player can stonewall USA for a long time even if going 100% at Japan.  
    Obviously the #1 priority of the Allies is to not allow the Axis to win on either map.
    A certain minimal level of USA presence in Europe greatly improves the UK’s effectiveness and threat.  Always have a bomb threat on West Germany’s airbase with USA.  And always have a can opener with USA on Axis fleets in Europe, for UK.  Also, always threaten to take Norway and/or Normandy with USA.  No Axis player wants the USA building units directly in Europe.
    Furthermore, USA ground units are needed to take a territory that the UK can then reinforce, including aircraft.

    But the Japan victory conditions, as Wheat and Cow have basically said, are easy.  Just get India and one more.  This is why USA largely ignoring Pacific early is a recipe for losing.

    I disagree that the Allies can easily defend Hawaii and Sydney both for a long time, given minimal USA presence in the Pacific.  As Wheat said, Japan can build up a lot of transports.  As Cow said, go to Carolines.  Allies won’t be able to defend both Sydney and Hawaii when Japan has tons of transports and ground units on the Carolines.


  • It looks like I have to clarify something.
    By Euro-domination I do not mean ‘Pacific ignoration’ ;-). USA must build enough to be able to defend Hawaii at all costs (since Calcutta will fall). Both in short and long term.
    This usually means the USA can spend the biggest part of it’s income early on to establish that upper hand in Europe and spend (much) more in the pacific later on.

    So, I agree that the USA cannot ever (!) ignore the Pacific. Not even a little. When I play the USA, I always make sure I have more warships and combat factors than Japan by the time they start looking eastwards. Having the upper hand in Europe is still possible at the same time. Thinking of it, maybe it can be considered a balanced approach as well (but failed to recognize it as such) because I spend like most (if not all) US income in Europe first 2 turns and then switch favours according to the needs in the Pacific.

    Lots of strong ideas for both sides I see here (thanks for that, I like that a lot) so I doubt there is an automatic victory for either side with an allied Euro-domination strategy. As long as they do NOT ignore the Pacific, that is.

  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    Right - that’s what I would call a balanced approach - seems most players I’ve run into concentrate on Japan, maybe a bit too much

  • '16 '15 '10

    Good discussion.  The OPs query typically depends on what Axis is doing and when Japan declares war.  For the most part, Allies react to what Axis does…even the USA.

    One problem with KGF is how hard it is to be offensive with Russia vrs an elite Axis.  Tanks being 6$ makes them hard to justify.  If Japan conquers China and India relatively early, then Japan plays a role in the Europe theater by containing Russia and threatening Africa.

    There is some rationale to USA spending a bit more in the Atlantic early on if it’s likely to lead to Italy not getting NOs and/or USA getting Norway/Finland relatively early (or even France, if Germany is incautious).  Or one might want to deploy USA early to destroy an Axis fleet.  On the other hand, investing in the Atlantic likely means the USA must spend more in the Pacific to defeat Japan, when Japan might have been contained at less cost with a larger initial commitment from the USA.

  • TripleA

    Plus if you do ever want to take Italy or Germany you have to invest in transports… a unit that has no attack or defense value.

    This is the problem with USA, it does not start with enough infantry or transports so it takes so long to ramp up a d-day that is worth looking at.

    Even when the allies go atlantic, rounds 1-4 as Germany I buy nothing for them, Italy can defend on its own, because Germany needs max power to take Russia round 6 or 7. It is really easy.

    Unless you have a force that can conquer germany, west germany, or italy… you pose no threat, maybe you get Norway? Okay, I take Moscow. How is that? Meanwhile Japan is kickin butt in the pacific.

  • TripleA

    If Larry Harris wanted America to matter he would put Honolulu on the right island and America would start with at least 5 more infantry.

    America sucks. Been sucking since the new transport rules. The most sucking America has experienced was the WW1 1914 map, the country is not a part of the game until round 10. Larry Harris is trying to say America was in not WW1, because he “communicates through the board games” he makes - it says so in the rulebook.

    There are even sea mines to stop you from not building transports and go convoying, sea mines roll every round, so you are forced into some transport bs.

  • TripleA

    America used to make +30 NO… that got nerfed even though the axis were the favorite in OOB, but that is cool. Take away the Gibraltar airbase too while you are at it, go Larry Harris.

    Freaking ridiculous, America sucks in the atlantic, not enough infantry or money to make it happen, garbage ass country. Rather play the axis, because even if I lose the Pacific with Japan, HELLO AFRICA. OH WHAT IS THAT GERMANY HAS RUSSIA, VC WIN!


  • Apart from rationales, I just want a (semi) KGIF to work.
    The game will loose most -if not all- its charm for me if KJF would be the only thing to go for as the USA. For me personally, A&A has deviated too much from history already to also swallow a forced KJF. Luckily (for me), it still doesn’t look impossible to pull off a semi-KGIF as a ‘standard’ allied strategy.

    Everything seems to come at a price in this game. Germany taking Moscow is true but the price is high: Germany + Italy loosing everything west of Berlin. Including all of Italy. Not to mention half the German Luftwaffe will be gone as well.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    For me personally, A&A has deviated too much from history already to also swallow a forced KJF. Luckily (for me), it still doesn’t look impossible to pull off a semi-KGIF as a ‘standard’ allied strategy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

    “Official U.S. statistics indicate that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.”

    Similar to how it often goes down in Global.  Not to say Global is historical–Axis are meant to have a 50/50 shot at winning which was definitely not the case in the actual war.

    I’m a history buff–for me Global is the best A&A yet.

    America sucks. Been sucking since the new transport rules…

    An interesting debate.  Some people are always going to prefer the more powerful 0/1 transport for 8$.  Maybe the new(er) ruleset hasn’t been fully tweaked.

    I think Global’s introduction of naval bases went a long way towards improving navy’s chances relative to aa50.  The Battle of the Atlantic improved with aa50 and got better still with Global.  The added difficulty for Allies is not a game quality issue because that can be fixed with bids.  The powerless transports make for more naval drama.

    Air power remains superior to naval power…awhich is the way it was in the war too.  The new ruleset gets better use out of subs and destroyers as well as carriers, while in the Revised ruleset, transports were the typical naval fodder unit, which is more or less ahistorical.  Hopefully in the future there will be further improvements leading to more dynamic submarine wars.

  • TripleA

    Because I hate investing into naval so heavily, I find it is easier to dump truck 16 guys a round into spain.  UK can simply build units in the middle east / africa all day.

  • '15 Official Q&A '11 '10 Moderator

    Excellent posts, Zhukov

    And Cow makes a good point - USA was overpowered, and is now underpowered.  Most games are really decided by round 3-8, somewhere in there, and USA doesn’t really get humming until round 8 or so.

    Also, the 30 the USA used to have was untouchable.  Now 10 of the 20 can actually be disrupted from time to time.  Allies are needing a small bid.  Could have been fixed with a bit stronger USA.  But oh well

  • TripleA

    I need a heavy bid to compete as the allies. Like if I lose africa/middle east early like before round 6…. it is almost always a lost game.


  • @Gamerman01:

    Excellent posts, Zhukov

    And Cow makes a good point - USA was overpowered, and is now underpowered.  Most games are really decided by round 3-8, somewhere in there, and USA doesn’t really get humming until round 8 or so.Â

    Also, the 30 the USA used to have was untouchable.  Now 10 of the 20 can actually be disrupted from time to time.  Allies are needing a small bid.  Could have been fixed with a bit stronger USA.  But oh well

    +1 for Zhukov!

    I really enjoyed the Germany first link, although it was a little bit confusing. From what I understand, the USA was spending more for Europe, but deployed more in the Pacific. I think this is at least correctly reflected in A&A’s  initial set up (read: deployment). Look at the fleet/air difference between the east and west coast in the game. If the USA keeps investing IPCs into the Pacific (what I read from that Wiki, the USA did so with 15-30% of their ‘income’ during the early years of the war), it will take indeed to 1943 to have roughly equal forces in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. In A&A that is, if each game turn equals roughly half a year of the real war.

    Long story short: if the USA (in A&A) wants to divide their forces slightly similar to the historical 1943 situation (also from that great link), for the first 7 turns they must spend an average of ~50IPCs per turn in the Atlantic and roughly 8 to 15 IPCs per turn into the Pacific. That way the A&A-USA will have roughly equal forces in both the Atlantic and Pacific by 1943. Given that they do not send units from the Pacific into Europe or vice versa.
    In A&A-reality, the USA must ofc pay a very close eye to what Japan is buying and where those forces are going to be deployed (anticipation that may proove very dangerous if Japan is trying to trick the USA) in order to adjust whatever basic investment scheme they may have.

    While I agree with some of you on this forum that the allies (USA) feels weak/underpowered, I think the reality is that the allies will become too strong very quickly if buffed. I think a little buff, worth like 10 to 12IPCs can be justified if the extra units are not that crucial and deployed with thourough consideration. After all, the allies start with 62 more units on the board and will have 260 - 300IPCs more than the axis to spend during the first 4 turns and there is nothing the axis can do about that.

  • TripleA

    That is why I suggest infantry units for usa. I still do not understand why Russia does not start with a bomber, Germany air is still crazier and he has way more firepower.

  • Sponsor

    So funny that just over two years ago in this forum, A&A.org members were crapping all over Larry for not giving the Axis a chance to win.

  • TripleA

    That was not me. I said axis op from the get go. I had to make my Japan playbook to prove the point.

  • TripleA

    Remember when round 3 both london and calcutta would get wrecked by the axis in OOB?

    Then A2 came out and the axis still owned everything? A2 not that different from A3 / current

  • Customizer

    @Zhukov44:

    “Official U.S. statistics indicate that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.”

    Yeah, and it really pissed off the Brits. When Roosevelt and Churchill met before the US was at war, they had agreed on stopping Hitler first before doing anything about Japan. Then Pearl Harbor happened and the Japanese spread throughout the Pacific and Asia like an angry yellow plague. The US leaders realized it would not be wise to just let Japan romp around the Pacific unchecked, so they allocated significant resources to the Pacific theater.
    To the British, it seemed like the US was breaking it’s word and not following the all important plan. Unfortunately for the British, they weren’t really in any position to complain a lot, given the fact that Germany was more or less giving them what’s for. While it’s true that Montgomery turned things around in Africa, England would not have had near the offensive capability without the US help.

    I still wonder what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Until Dec. 11, 1941, we were technically only at war with Japan. Do you think that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany and Italy to get us into the European theater? Or would the US have just waged war against Japan?


  • @knp7765:

    (…)I still wonder what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Until Dec. 11, 1941, we were technically only at war with Japan. Do you think that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany and Italy to get us into the European theater? Or would the US have just waged war against Japan?

    I think the safest assumption is that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany yes. A bit later, but still. We can speculate about what would have happened but we do know that the US government already wanted to go to war with Germany but still needed an excuse to do so because of the public opinion. Knowing politics, they would probably have made one if Germany wouldn’t provide one like they did.

    After all, pre-war Roosevelt promised Churhill to KGF and I don’t believe that was only just a fake promise because FDR wanted to keep him quiet. The Japanese actions forced Roosevelt’s deployment of existing troops but 2 years later at the end of 1943, the USA was equally strong in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
    In game-terms I think that is 4 turns from ‘Pearl’ and 7 turns from game start. Having roughly equal forces in both theatres means spending 50IPCs per turn in the Atlantic from game start, OR spending 100% in the Pacific first two turns and then 100% in the Atlantic for the next 5 turns.

    I wonder how that would work in A&A as the USA must be ready to sortie into either Gibraltar/Spain or the DEI US3 or else Moscow will fall without consequences for the axis and that’s game over.
    IMHO, the fall of Moscow is not the end of the world for the allies, IF they can punish the axis for it somewhere else. Whether this means taking everything west of Berlin or denying Japan its expansion in the Pacific is up to the USA.

Suggested Topics

  • 40
  • 33
  • 12
  • 8
  • 49
  • 1
  • 25
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

78
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts