• OK, a few new folks posting on the board and LOTS of questions about Japan, KJF, etc promoted this…

    Japan starts out with MASSIVE naval power.  They are so powerful on the seas that they initially can wipe out both the US and UK fleets in the Pacific, and still have ships in the water.  Japan’s problem is that the Allied navies are too spread out to deal with all of it on J1.  They also are tasked with taking some of the heat off Germany or else the Axis loses the game.  Add into the mix that the bulk of Japan’s land forces are stuck on islands at the start, that Japan will likely only have 1 tranny on J1, and that they have a major build limit issue with the 8 unit limit in Tokyo, and it is obvious that Japan has some issues that they have to deal with QUICKLY in order to get in the game in a big way.

    Japan has several potential avenues of attack:  northern Asia (bury, SFE, Yakut); central Asia (China, Sinkiang); south Asia (India, Persia); African east coast, South Pacific (Australia, New Zealand), Central Pacific (Hawaii, Midway); and North Pacific/North America (Alaska, Western Canada).

    North Asia:  This is he easiest avenue of attack for Japan.  It involves building trannies to get units from Japan to Bury in a birdge move via SZ60.  The trannies are easilly protected due to distance from Allied air force landing zones and by keeping 1 or more Capital ships in home waters.  While supporting the North Asia strike, Japan remains well defended against US incursion due to massed ships in SZ60, and land forces being built in Japan.  The disadvantage is that the North Asia strike yields little IPC gain, and does little to slow Russia’s growth (once you reach Yakut you have only shifted the equivalent of 1 INF per round from Allies to Axis).  Also, with Japan’s build limit, you quickly reach a maximum of 4 ARM and 4 INF per round being available for that attack, and that would be ALL of Japan’s build capability.  Even with the drawbacks, the ease and cost effectiveness (in terms of naval expenditure vs. number of units trannied to Asia) is VERY positive.  Thus Japan should, in most cases, maintain at least some pressure on the North Asia front.

    Central Asia:  This is one of the hardest avenues of attack for Japan, but one of the best.  It is a direct pipeline into Novo (a very key Russia territory, that if taken and held by Japan is a grave threat to Russia that MUST be countered, even at the cost of pulling forces away from the German front.  The problem is, there is no quick way to get forces to the Central Asia avenue without at least 1 new IC.  Manchuria or Kwangtung both serve equally as choices to support a Central Asia strike, with Manchuria offering the ability to send forces to either the north prong or central with equal ease.  Also, trannies can be shifted from SZ60 to SZ61 to flow Japan built troops to Manchuria to support the central strike (at the cost of forces on the northern strike).  The risk here is that, until Sinkiang is taken, the trannies in SZ61 are at risk, requiring more capital ships in home waters for defense of the fleet, and the new IC is at risk for free SBR’s as long as Novo is held by Russia.  A factory in FIC can also support a central asia strike, but is discussed in South Asia below.  ONE WORD OF WARNING:  China is a critical J1 strike for Japan.  Taking it, you often have enough force to follow up with a Sinkiang attack on J2 using your AF and ground forces.  Doing so however will leave you critically thin on your front with Russia, with Japan forces to back up those initial strikes several rounds behind.  You could easilly find yourself facing Russia forces rampaging through your Asian holdings if you do not get enough forces to the front before pushing to Sinkiang (and beyond).

    South Asia:  To my mind, this is perhaps one of THE best avenues of attack for Japan.  UK is likely to use their India forces to hold Africa (giving up 3 IPC’s to keep the 9 in Africa from Egypt south.  Again this allows Japan to advance quickly, with the risk of advancing too quickly and being decimated by a small strike of USSR forces coming south from Caucuses.  The south Asia avenue of attack can be supported with an IC in FIC, as well as by 1-2 transports that scavenge INF from the islands (Phillipines and East Indies in particular), and later with “tranny exchange” where a loaded tranny brings forces to FIC from Japan 1 round, then travels back the next round to “bridge” forces to Bury or Manch, being replaced by another loaded tranny heading to FIC from Japan.  Thus all trannies are able to ferry forces each round.  The south Asia strike has two additional advantages that make it such a strong threat to the Allies.  The first is that it adds a second threat to the Russian IC in Caucuses.  With Germany pushing via Ukraine, and Japan pushing through India and Persia, Caucuses becomes an issue for Russia.  And control of that IC by either side, with supporting defensive forces flowed in by the other plus subsequent builds, means that Russia is in serious trouble.  If Caucuses is too well defended, you can possibly slip some forces past and move on into Africa.  But again, be careful, if Caucuses is well held and you move past Persia, Russia can strike at your supply line and even back toward your FIC base while your advance forces are cut off in Trans Jordan or Egypt.  An IC in FIC should probably be the first built by Japan since it allows for use on 2 otherwise slow to supply avenues of attack.

    East Africa:  This is not an avenue that opens immediately for Japan.  It usually takes 2-3 rounds for the circumstance to allow a push here.  Once 1-2 Asian IC’s are operating, the UK Indian and Australian fleets are destroyed, and the islands near FIC have been trannied to FIC or India, then you can use 1 (maybe 2, but that is risky) tranny to shuttle forces from FIC to Africa.  The risk here of course is that you can put 2 units from FIC on that Africa bound tranny leaving only 1 unit to support your south and central asia attacks.  It is also a slow attack, and with a very strong Allied naval presence in the Atlantic, EASILLY countered.  Grab some free IPC’s from Madagascar, and drop 2 INF in South Africa, then either retreat the tranny back, or make a suicide run to Brazil.  But against just 2-3 trannies of Allied units to Africa, Japan is not going to hold territory there for long.  The logistics of re-supply (4 trannies needed to keep 1 loaded tranny emptying in Africa from Japan each round) simply is too extensive to merit the return (32 IPC’s of trannies for a MAXIMUM of 9 IPC’s, more likely 2-4 IPC’s).  East Africa though CAN be effective once your south Asia avenue is fully developed and the trannie ssimply accelerate unit arrival in Africa from your IC’s.

    Remainder in next post…

  • South Pacific:  Once the UK fleet is gone, IPC’s gains in the South Pacifc open up.  The key to advancement here is being able to free up Japan capital ships from SZ60/61 to support the attack.  Without the capital ship support form either a BB and/or an AC with 1-2 FIGS, don’t bother.  If Australia still has 3 INF, you will need BOTH a BB and an AC with FIG(s) in addition to 1  loaded tranny.  To do it without the AC, you just land 1 INF at a time and let your BB do the offensive work… a slow proposition.  Once Australia is taken, New Zealand is easy (only 1 INF there).  Risks of course are if US is sending ANYTHING to the Pacific, you are not going to free up those capital ships.  After taking New Zealand, you can then consider sending these forces to other avenues:  back to south Asia, to Africa, toward Mexico or Panama, or even around cape horn to Brazil and then West Africa.  But beware… once those capital ships leave the Pacific, US builds will get to Japan before your capital ships can get back…

    Central Pacific:  Low IPC return, high risk of US taking out your forces.  No other way to say it.  Hawaii can quickly become a death trap for Japan.  your naval forces can be hit with North American air force and Western US navy, your ground forces can be hit directly via tranny from Los Angeles… all in exchange for 1 IPC.  Midway… even worse, then you don;t even get a single IPC.  If your goal is to try to get US to focus on Japan, you MIGHT risk it, but even then, there are better ways to do it.

    North Pacific/North America:  This is another avenue of attack that takes a couple of rounds to open up.  You need to get most of the Allied ships in the Pacific killed first, and reduce the US to just their Western US navy (an unreinforced one at that).  Then, using the trannies you built initially to support your north Asia strike, you instead slip over to SZ63 and unload forces in BOTH Alaska and Western Canada.  If you are going to do this, you need to do it HARD.  And you need to have additional trannies and ground forces being built to send the second wave, and retreat the initial trannies for refill to keep the operation going.  Head to head vs the US, Japan does not stand a chance.  BUT… this type of massive disruption of US forces heading for Europe can be effective if timed with German advances on Russia.  If Japan goes full-tilt on this avenue of attack, the US will lose 1-2 rounds of total support in Europe, and if timed correctly can let Germany reach Moscow.  Otherwise, your are pouring your forces into a meat grinder.

    Anyway, I hope you found this to be worthwhile.  I of course invite others to add their comments, suggestions, and just plain tell me I am full of it 🙂

  • Then, using the trannies you built initially to support your north Asia strike, you instead slip over to SZ63 and unload forces in BOTH Alaska and Western Canada.

    I’ve been trying to time this strike, but it’s rather difficult. When you start doing this, you release significant pressure off of Russia from the East, so he can start pushing back if he wants (bad bad!). Also if the US already has a transport system in place when you do this, he can still shuck a round or 2 of troops into Europe that are already staged in Britain/East Canada. I don’t think it really lets German advance on Russia either, since the UK should still be around and can in the very worst case scenario shuck troops to Archangel then move to Moscow to defend.

    BUT… this type of massive disruption of US forces heading for Europe can be effective if timed with German advances on Russia.

    I don’t know, wouldn’t it be even better if you had Japanese pressure on Moscow to combine with the German advance? Surely the Japanese advance would be stronger if the US and the other Allies have been focusing on him already. Going against the US wastes your time in most cases.

  • If it is later in the game, then yes, the land assaults on Russia and continued support of them is the better choice…

    BUT, the Alaska/West Canada strike CAN be done in J2 or J3 (preferably J3) and disrupt the US schuck before established… about the same time that Germany’s first INF buy hits the Russia front…

  • BUT, the Alaska/West Canada strike CAN be done in J2 or J3 (preferably J3) and disrupt the US schuck before established… about the same time that Germany’s first INF buy hits the Russia front…

    J3 is a critical time when you’re solidifying your Asian holdings (usually I shuck some troops to F. Indo). I don’t know if it’s wise to release pressure on Russia so soon; your first tank buys probably won’t even hit Asia if you’re striking at J3. You can try to disrupt the US shuck before it’s established, but be well aware that at least I keep 5 infantry already stacked in Western Canada to serve as advance warning (from alaska, central, western US), and that the bomber from London and land troops staged in Eastern Canada will be poised to counterattack these positions. You may keep Alaska for a turn or 2, but it is it worth it to leave the Russians so unmolested? Likely you will have 2-4 fighters along with your carriers/bbs to pressure the US, and this leaves Russia quite in a happy state early on, so he can keep focusing nearly full troops on Germany in land trades and even push back perhaps in south Asia since you didn’t reinforce it so early on.

    The US also has to spend much less money defending against the Japanese attacks than it’s costing Japan to attack, especially since you need many transports to maintain a constant pipeline of 3-4 inf/tank per turn. A constant flow of 3 inf 3 tank requires 6 transports, while a flow of 4 inf 4 tank requires 8 transports, very hefty infrastructure costs.

    And in US1 and US2 I should have built enough stuff to help sink the Baltic navy as well as get into Africa, so the UK should be more than free to help Russia wherever he can. Germany should be able to take on the UK/Russia alone normally, but the US has already had a chance to build some equipment to help overcome the African barrier and the Baltic barrier. The UK + Russia should be able to hold back Germany fairly well while Russia sends some troops south/eastward to secure more holdings especially since it’s so weak from all those Japanese troops invading the damn Canadians  😉

    I have thought of messing around with the idea of overbuilding transports at inconspicuous times with Japan (such as building transports when I’m offloading junk into F. Indochina or replacing transports from island hopping). Then I would consolidate all the transports in SZ60 at some point. If the US is not watchful, I would then proceed to offload perhaps 6-8 transports of stuff directly into Western Canada (grab troops from mainland Japan as well as forces in Buryatia previously offloaded), which would spell defeat if the US hadn’t prepped for it beforehand, since he couldn’t build enough forces in Western US to defend against it, especially with bb shots and 4 fighters/bomber. I just have not gotten a real chance to try it though.

    It’s pretty easy to disrupt the US’s plans (I think it’s the hardest power to play by far) with Japanese shucks into Canada, but you always have to consider if it’s worth it to release pressure on Russia, as well as you’re not grabbing islands you would be normally to permanently dent the Allies’ economy.

  • Tri, you are missing something… the same move YOU use on FIC…

    Japan lands in Alaska and West Canada while on the same round building a tranny or 2 plus land forces (Japan is around 35 IPC’s at this point).  Then, on J4 (the round after the A/WC attack), Japan sends 4 trannies back to SZ60 for re-load, and serves as a bridge to Bury at the same time, while the 2 new trannies send reinforcements to Alaska.

    J5 would be 4 trannies to Alaska and 2 to Bury…

    Japan sets up their own shuck-shuck, sending forces in TWO directions. using all trannies at all times, just like with the FIC shuck, and pressures US while sending significant ground forces (4 INF 1 round, then 4 INF and 4 ARM the next) at Russia, all the while supported by figs and bombers and letting the ground forces do the work in North America…

    Now throw in the FIC tank factory built in J2 to support south and central Asia… you have a nice 4 prong attack going:  1 at US, 1 at UK money, 2 at Russia.

  • Details on that attack sequence…

    J1:  1 ARM and 1 ARM to Bury, take China (with 3-4 INF remaining), take India for free (UK evac to India).  Build 3 TRN
    J2:  Build FIC IC, land 5 INF and 1 ART in Bury, land 2 INF in FIC
    J3:  3 ART and 3 INF to Alaska and W. Canada.  3 ARM build FIC.  1 TRN to East Indies and TRN 2 INF to India.  Build 2 TRN and ground
    J4:  3 trannies back to SZ60, 2 TRN with ART and INF to Alaska/W Canada, ground forces to Bury with returning 3 TRN.

    So you have a 2-3 double shuck established and continuing in J5, with landings in North America supported by BB’s (adding 1.4 kills to the forces in Western Canada per round).  Russia still faces 7-10 ground units per round, supported by AF, coming at them via north and central avenues, Japan INF controls southern Asia avenue to Persia, and 1 TRN free in Indian Ocean for Africa raiding.

    Damn, I think I just found the update for my Classic strats to Revised!

  • Yeah but you’re splitting forces you build in Japan. One turn to Russia and one turn to the US….I don’t like splitting effort, especially when the US is very capable of dealing with your forces while Russia isn’t. I would rather burden Russia with 100% forces rather than let the US take 50% of the brunt of the attack.

    And still, you have increased your infrastructure costs by requiring more transports, and island hopping is out of the question. Africa raiding is hardly going to go well when there’s leftover US/UK troops in Africa, especially since you’re lacking the bb and airpower.

    I do like the idea of using BB shots against the US, but the problem boils down to the fact that even when I go 100% against Russia with Japan, I still don’t arrive in time usually. Do you think you’ll delay the US enough to make up for the lack of ground pressure against Russia? Do you think the extra infrastructure cost is worth it? As well as the missed opportunity to island hop and get Africa?

  • Tri, you are forgetting one of the key concepts of strategy… APPEARANCE of force.  True, it may not work against the top 20-30 players here, but against 99% of folks…

    You have a mass of INF, perhaps 7-10, plus a couple of tanks and some artillery in Yakut.  You have 3-6 INF in Alaska/WCan along with 2-3 ART and 1-2 ARM, plus BB’s, and maybe an AC with a fig or 2 for good measure.  Add in you have Japan in Sinkiang, Japan in Persia…  Then add a few advances by Germany, perhaps taking out the UK fleet, or a good measure of it, about G3…  You are forcing US to deal with the Japan incursion, or at least weakening the number of forces left in the shuck, you are making Russia send a few INF to Evenk/Novo/Kazakh perimeter instead of sending them to take Ukraine or re-take Karelia…

    You now have the PERCEPTION of the Axis dominating the game… Japan heading for Moscow in force, UK’s IPC’s being lost, Germany counter-attacking Russia’s advances and UK sans a fleet, or most of it…

    You tell me how most folks would respond to seeing THAT situation on the board. 🙂

  • Oh and Tri…

    The infrastructure costs are not THAT great.  Actually, the extra tranny builds in J3 and J4 take the pressure off Japan on their second impending build limit of 11 units with 1 IC in Tokyo and a second probably in FIC.

    You are still sending 7 units a round at Russia in your “weak” round, 11 in your “strong” round, with 4 and 6 at US, along with the BB’s

    Plus you still get the 3 IPC’s for Alaska and W Canada, the same as grabbing Australia and New Zealand, BUT with the advantage of destabilizing the US shuck 🙂

    You ARE forced to advance a bit slower as Japan.  But that does not matter that much really… Japan advancing too fast is its own risk… unsupported forces.  With doing the “bridge and back”, you are sending more INF against Russia, plus some ART and the occasional ARM, always supported by your FIGS, which is actually a STRONGER advance than the 1-2 INF and an ARM breaking the K/N/E frontier 🙂

  • You now have the PERCEPTION of the Axis dominating the game

    I’m not forgetting that perception is important at all. I’m just trying to look past perception at the math involved, since it is a math-based game after all and it’s really those top 20-30% players that I’m trying to beat. I’m sure that sending piecemeal forces to the US is very mentally annoying especially with BB shots and will screw up a lot of players (probably even myself as I haven’t had to deal with it enough yet, but it’s not an entirely new concept as I have tried this against myself once).

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not entirely convinced that this strategy is flawed, and it’s going to take a couple of games to see how it plays out for reals, but I’m just trying to look at what you’re giving up when you do this strategy. Plus points for use of battleships and extra mental obstacles for the US player to overcome, minus points for relenting on Russia I would say significantly as those little troops add up over time and it’s already a task with 100% forces committed to cause Russia to buckle under. Though of course if you can cause the US to overcommit defenses, then it may well be worth it overall. If you could force the US into doing a west-based shuck-shuck like you suggested earlier as a counter, that still does delay the US and it could be worth it. But I tend to run a 3x3 transport system in Europe which leaves money to spare for extra expenses like defenses on the west coast and fighters.

    and UK sans a fleet, or most of it…

    This really shouldn’t be a huge problem since the US has the first 2 turns to fully build stuff to help the UK in the waters and in Africa. If you combine fleets and build lots of extra transport fodder with the UK, then you can work around a German navy and the suicide won’t be that incredibly effective.

  • Sounds like the two of us have a theory to test in our next game 🙂

  • You are still sending 7 units a round at Russia in your “weak” round, 11 in your “strong” round, with 4 and 6 at US, along with the BB’s

    No matter what you are relenting on Russia. It is a bad idea to go too fast, but going too slow is also bad since you need to close the IPC gap before it takes its toll on you. I like starting Japans first 2 rounds with masses of infantry being dumped on the mainland, so that 4-5 turns later I have good fodder while the tanks are rolling out behind them.

    Plus you still get the 3 IPC’s for Alaska and W Canada, the same as grabbing Australia and New Zealand, BUT with the advantage of destabilizing the US shuck

    That’s true, but it’s not quite the same as grabbing 3 IPCs as you’re “sharing” Western Canada at least as the US liberates it so the UK feels no dent in his paycheck minus India, which he will quickly regain in Norway and Africa.

    Destabilizing the US shuck is good, and like I said the idea of using BB shots a lot is cool, but the US does get something out of this, which is he is helping directly shoulder the burden of the Japanese assault. Running a 3x3 transport system costs can cost between 21-24 IPCs to maintain the land troops with every turn, while the remainder 12+ perhaps IPCs can still be used flexibly to deal with the Japanese or build fighters if they’re not invading.

  • Then look at the options for Japan going full-bore against US in Alaska and W Can… 3 Trannies in J1 and 3 more in J2, then another in J3.  That gives you a 4x4 tranny load into Alaska/WestCan and the same 4x4 load against Russia… EVERY round.  Raid the islands in J2 to get the needed forces, take China, India and Bury to get Japan’s IPC’s to 36 against the US’s 42…  Then you take 3 more IPC’s in Alaska and WCan, and grab Sinkiang, and now it is 38 Japan to 36 US…

    I don;t care what the US does, unless it is a naval/AF build, they are going to get rocked by 4 INF and 4 ARM a round + 2 BB’s in Western Canada.  And once the US builds Pacific fleet, you just won your fight to keep the US out of Europe for a round or 3.

  • You can’t both rock the US with 4 inf 4 arm AND dump 4 inf 4 arm in Buryatia every single turn. You have 4 inf 4 arm that you build in Japan which have to be allocated between Russia/US; you can at best alternate between Russia/US every other turn or split 2 inf 2 arm. In a 4x4 build you are truly ramping up the infrastructure a lot, too.

    You are definitely keeping the US out of Europe for many rounds (at least 3) if you go hard, but the US has already had the critical first 2 turns to develop enough stuff to diffuse the Baltic and African situations, which then allows the UK to operate fairly freely.

    That would be quite interesting to go full-bore against the US for a while and I would like to see how it plays out, but with 32 IPCs dedicated to the US every round, this lets Russia sneak through wherever you’re weak with a commando team of 5 inf + some tanks, quite possibly freeing up sinkiang/china again to realign the IPC difference. You just aren’t generating enough income to keep up a full assault and still maintain Asian land forces.

    I would really like to see exactly how this plays out though. If the US isn’t very careful it could easily cost him Western US in a jiffy. For instance if all I had was say 5 infantry in Western Canada, then you could say invade it with 4 inf 4 arm 2 bb shots + 4 fighters. I would then try to build 4 tank 6 inf (38 IPCs, maxes out western complex), which wouldn’t be able to stand against your invading force. I’d have to send in some junk from the Eastern US and planes from London or wherever they are, yet they might be very much caught up in Africa or died against the Baltic navy. Interesting situation  😉

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    you people should start a game… looks like another battle of the Iron Generals! …tonights recipe: war with plastic

  • I like ncscswitch ideas on how to win as Japan.  I applaud you.  😄  Very well thought out.  Im going to try some of those strategys out soon and see if they work out for me.

  • Glad you like them.

    Let me know how they work out… so far, I have been unable to fully test them (I keep getting side tracked…)

  • I just don’t think going against the US full tilt is going to work. I tried it against myself and I always have enough land troops to deal with it, plus doing it so early really lets Russia kick butt in Asia. It’s a good move to keep in mind when a situation arises, but I don’t think it stands alone as something you can count on winning the game for you, as you really need to pressure Russia hard.

  • @trihero:

    I just don’t think going against the US full tilt is going to work. I tried it against myself and I always have enough land troops to deal with it, plus doing it so early really lets Russia kick butt in Asia. It’s a good move to keep in mind when a situation arises, but I don’t think it stands alone as something you can count on winning the game for you, as you really need to pressure Russia hard.

    Oh gods no! Certainly not a stand-alone strategy.  Of the “avenues of attack” I posted, Japan MUST do at least 2 of them (or risk build limits, and strong counter’s elsewhere) and 3 is probably a good idea.  Trying to stretch to 4 of them would make all of them too weak.

    BUT, you do get to choose among the 6 major avenues, and mix and match as desired…

  • Here’s some thoughts and experiences I’ve had with Japan recently:

    If you’re a pretty confident Japanese player, I would suggest completely skipping Pearl Harbor. It is a waste of your time because the fleet there poses no real threat in either the Pacific nor Atlantic theaters. Any units you lose there (especially aircraft) is a detriment to your war effort, and any fighters you have left positioned there are way out of reach to be useful in the next round.

    Now, why do I say that the Pearl Harbor fleet poses no real threat?

    In the Pacific theater, it is simply a waste of time for the US to pursue attacking Japan head-on, provided the Japanese player is skilled. Japan will outdistance the US in IPCs soon enough, and starts with a tremendously stronger navy that’s even stronger on defense. If Pearl Harbor survives and the US says “gee, I’ll go after Japan”, then you have won a victory right there already. This means Germany will have an easy time in Africa, as well as have a fairly easy time keeping the UK from landing anywhere and force him to buy lots of defensive navy. The US really has to pour their entire income into navy to screw with the Japanese; while it can possibly be effective when islanding hopping using solomon islands, this lets a whole lot of steam off of Germany which is deadly.

    The Japanese navy really shouldn’t fall provided you expand at even a moderate pace. You start with 2 carriers and 6 fighters, and if you need to you can put another carrier in the water to create a ridiculously strong defensive force, as well as add subs periodically, all the while dumping troops into Buryatia and walking them through Russian territories. The only way that Japan will have trouble is if all 3 Allies come at him from the start, and that will certainly end in swift defeat as Germany runs roughshod over Africa and the Russians.

    Now in the Atlantic, what threat does the Pearl Harbor fleet pose? Except for that one extra fighter, nothing at all. The carrier and sub take something on the order of 4+ rounds to get into a position to defend the transport system. By round 4 you shouldn’t be needing protection unless something went horribly wrong. By round 4 the Baltic fleet should be scrap or very nearly scrapped, and you should already have sufficient defense from the first couple rounds of purchases.

    So what do I do with my forces when I skip Pearl Harbor? For one, I’ll use the extra aircraft to increase the chances of the China fight going down in one round. Usually the bomber/fighter in Japan are used against Harbor, but now they can be used against China, which gives you great chance to knock out all that equipment in one go, thereby decreasing chances of you losing infantry which you need early on to keep your gains.

    With the Philippines fleet, I will sink that UK transport that’s off of Egypt, instead of sinking the destroyer in Kwangtung. This heavily decreases the attack force that the UK can bring on his next turn; usually with that transport alive he can bring 2 infantry (1 from rhodesia, 1 from persia) and along with the infantry from Trans-Jordan to attack Egypt again (there’s nothing you can do to prevent the first time UK attacks Egypt, but you can mess with his second turn chances).

    The destroyer in Kwangtung poses no real threat in any case, especially since I retreat all navy to defend SZ60 instead of using them against Harbor. There is some variability here such as where the carrier/fighter went, but it shouldn’t matter. If there’s a carrier + fighter defending the transport, then I’ll still sink it and be glad. If the carrier went with the destroyer to ensure the kwangtung’s transport’s death, then I don’t care as it poses no offensive threat. Fighters from the Philippines fleet can land in Libya if the dice went bad and you had to lose your Japanese carrier.

    I will use that fighter from the Carolines to sink the British sub or transport if they’re around because it has nothing better to do, then it goes to SZ60 with the rest of the fleet to defend the newly built transports.

    And recently I’ve been messing around with the idea of starting with a 2 complex buy. It does sound crazy, but hear me out: this ramps up the pressure against Russia much faster than transport builds because of tank’s movement vs infantry. You give up fast island hopping, but you gain Russian territories faster as you can have a nice constant stream of tanks that are mostly in range of each other to counterattack if the Russians decide to push back. With infantry swapping in Bury/Indochina and their slow movement, it’s hard for them to adjust and support each other, as well as push quickly.

    You can still island hop with your initial transport. It will be slower, but on the other hand, you do not have to worry about letting up land pressure. If you rely on transports mostly then you’d have to replace the transports or build a complex to keep the land pressure going if you island hopped. With the double complex buy, that’s the end of having to buy more infrastructure right there. Island-hopping slowly isn’t so bad anyways, since it’s not worth a ton of IPCs and you can use free troops from islands and battleship shots. IPCs you miss out on the islands earlier on is very much offset by the territories you can take earlier on the Russian front.

    Now, definitely with a 3 tran “normal” buy, you have more flexibility. You can screw with the US and keep him somewhat honest; with a 2 complex buy he can go with a 4x4 fleet but if you have transports potentially invading Alaska/West Canada, he’ll have to run a 3x3 or risk getting snared up easily later on. You can do some pretty fast island hopping, and the transports will help a lot if you’re getting KJF’ed. Of course if you’re getting KJF’ed you should see it coming and definitely in that case go with transports, but if not, then I would definitely recommend trying 2 complexes some time.

    And on a parallel note, there is a nasty/tricky move you can do to upset the Allies a bit. It starts with the concept of swapping, where you alternate dropping between Buryatia and Indochina every turn, which is a solid basic strategy since it secures more avenues of attack and lets you drop all troops you build in Japan every turn due to SZ60 bordering Buryatia. Now the tricky move is to actually drop 4 tran of stuff into Africa after you drop troops into Indochina, instead of going back and dumping in Buryatia. 1 tran can go take Madagascar while the other 3 take Egypt, Trans-Jordan, and Italian East Africa.

    Now I don’t suggest counting on this or doing this all the time for a couple of reasons: 1) it disrupts your flow of troops against Russia. 2) sometimes the Allies already have a large force in Africa and can deal with you handily.

    But if you want to risk it, it can throw a wrench into the Allies’ plans. If they have already shut Germany out of Africa and don’t have significant troops there, suddenly they’re going to have to do a big drop there which is going to mean less troops in Europe this turn. They will be forced to deal with it very soon or else your tanks will blitz up most of Africa next turn and eat up a very significant chunk of UK IPCs.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 8
  • 49
  • 33
  • 14
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys