Japan Strategy



  • I’m interested to know what you guys think the best Japan strategy is (for J1)… taking India, taking China, or establishing a foothold in Eastern Russia (either Bury or Soviet Far East).  I think it’s possible to take two of the three, but not all.  What do you guys think?
    Or taking Alaska…



  • Japan have this options :

    Western Routes :

    1. Northern route through Buryata too Moscow
    2. Central route throgh China to Moscow
    3. Southern route throgh India to Moscow or Africa
    4. Convoy directly to Africa

    Eastern Routes :
    5) Convoy to Alaska
    6) Convoy to Western USA

    Southern Routes
    7) Convoys to Australia and New Zealand



  • I usually attack China (to eliminate USA fighter there) and Hawaii. If necessary I consider also to attack Buraytia.
    My principal concern is to land troops on the mainland, usually in French Indocina to take India and roll up Russia from Persia.



  • I usually attack China, India, (and Pearl), which leaves me kinda sparsely spread out.  I wonder if its better to just concentrate on one route.



  • As a result of first turn attacks is normal that Japanese is spread out, but this is required by the different necessities that emerges at J1 start.
    The important think is to prepare to regroup in J2. I usually prefer to organize the J2 and J3 for shuttling troops on the continent, then prepare to buy a couple of ICs for deploying tanks.
    Usually I prefer the southern route across French Indocina, India and Persia. Following the ICs deplyment I attack Sinkiang.
    Every allied unit involved in battle against the Japanese is one less unit against Germany.
    As complementary strategies Imperial Navy may conquer: Australia, New Zealand and then Hawaii and Alaska. Otherwise after Australia, Madagscar and start landing in Africa.
    This consideration are valid if Allied go KGF. If a KJF is coming Japanese straegy has another objective: surviving.
    For this aim there is a very good article on countering KJF in the articles section of this site.



  • on J1 myself would advise the following

    to go heavily on:
    1)Hawaiian Seazone
    2)China

    if possible to destroy:
    1)UK navy
    2)India
    3)Buryatia

    that would be some advice for first turn

    Hawaiian battle is the most important
    then China and the UK navy


  • 2007 AAR League

    You could also say China is a bit more important than the Hawaii battle. Let’s look at it this way for a moment: If you don’t attack or you do attack it and get utterly destroyed with only your airforce left, that leaves little green men to run around your territories and taking away your income. And if the Russians and British stacked their respective corners, that would be a  lot of men of various colours running around your backyard.

    Secondly, the Pearl Harbour II battle is important, but you could always just strafe it, killing the boats and letting the fighter land back on the island. The US would then have to spend more money to buy boats, but you would be ahead in boats by a bit, and all you would need to do is buy another carrier - since you have 6 planes - and then start adding subs and transports as fodder as you get men into Asia or retake it.



  • yes, a strafe on Hawiian Seazone is another option, i would advise it when facing many UK navy units threating the Japanese; since Japan cant go strong on 5-6 places, but rather this how redeploying its attacking forces over Pacific



  • I usually take China, attack pearl, and get ready for a J2 attack on India.



  • All depends on the Allies dispocitions, do they KGF or KJF ?

    As general, your 30 income can not face US 42 income, so your route shold be going west, away from US forces, while stalling US fleet as long as possible with as less units as possible.

    KJF
    If Russia play conservative in Europe and stack in Buryata, and UK attack Borneo and that other island, or French Indo China, and kill your tranny and sub, and use the carrier and trannies to block you, and place a factory in India or Ausstralia, then you can be sure US will place 2 carriers in the water and come after you, and then I dunno what to do.

    KGF
    Now if Russia stack in Yakut, UK move all naval units away from Pacific, then you might figure US too will move the navy from Pacific to Atlantic. Buy 3 trannies, move them to sea zone 45 and threat Australia, Hawaii and Western US. Attack China. Decide what route to take to Moscow. If you go Indian route, you can choose to take Africa.



  • I am playing the axis now, and my strategy was the northern route through russia.  I kept bringing forces to the mainland and bought 2 IC’s to load up on tanks.  I then proceeded to destroy Russia.  They are no longer part of our game now… Germany is also still very strong and UK is within my reach.  However, USA has started an invasion into the Soviet Far East, so I will hav to regroup all my Japan tanks and artillary and head east to meet them.  Should be interesting.

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?



  • Australia and New Zealand add up to 3 IPCs that are rather remote and hard for the allies to liberate. In other words in most games once Japan has it it stays theirs.



  • @kfgolfer:

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?

    The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.



  • @Amon:

    @kfgolfer:

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?

    The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.

    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?



  • @cyan:

    @Amon:

    @kfgolfer:

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?

    The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.

    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?

    The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies.  It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn.  You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference?  The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.


  • 2007 AAR League

    The Axis start the game with an economic disadvantage $70-Axis vs. $96-Allies.  The Axis have no hope of winning in the long run unless they can reach near parity with the Allies.  Taking Australia, NZ, Madagascar, and Hawaii is 5IPC the Allies have no realistic chance of retaking (with the possible exception of Hawaii).  Japan should be able to take and hold Yakut, SFE, Bury, China, Sink, India and Persia for another 11IPC, that changes the balance $86-Axis vs. $80-Allies, these values will fluctuate as each side trades territories.  Germany needs to take some African Territories to offset the loss of Norway and West Russia.



  • @TimTheEnchanter:

    @cyan:

    @Amon:

    @kfgolfer:

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?

    The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.

    yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?

    The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies.  It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn.  You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference?  The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.

    wow i can’t quote. this is my response:
    yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?



  • @cyan:

    @TimTheEnchanter:

    @cyan:

    @Amon:

    @kfgolfer:

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?

    The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.

    yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?

    The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies.  It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn.  You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference?  The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.

    wow i can’t quote. this is my response:
    yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?

    Yes, it is.  :mrgreen:



  • @Amon:

    @cyan:

    @TimTheEnchanter:

    @cyan:

    @Amon:

    @kfgolfer:

    I might be missing the boat here, but I don’t see the importance of Australia?

    The greatest significance from capturing Australia & New Zealand when playing the Axis is in reducing UK economic capabilities.

    yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?

    The three ipc’s means one less inf for the axis AND one more for the allies.  It’s a net 6 ipc’s every turn.  You don’t think 2 inf per turn can make a significant difference?  The point is not to kill the infs, it’s to keep their buddies from showing up in Europe where they can do real damage.

    wow i can’t quote. this is my response:
    yes you are right. I forgot to count the ipc 2 ways. (axis and allies is a zero sum game). so it would be worth it. I just have it low on the priority list.
    but is it worth the cost to to kill all those inf that will not be able to harm anything if let be?

    Yes, it is.  :mrgreen:

    I said you were right. I said it wasn’t worth it at first and then i realized i didn’t count the ipcs as double(once to gain and once to loss). so Austrilia is worth it but I think there are much more important things to do. I prefer landing in Africa rather than austalia. but my attempt at fixing my messed up quote resulted in screwing it up further. cuz if you read my post it has two conflicting view points.



  • Cyan, I agree with you that landing in Africa is important.

    Usually my TRN goes to Australia only as a stop along the way for Madagascar and Africa. Alternatively I may go to New Zealand, Hawaii and then hit Alaska (to annoy USA) in the situation that Africa landing is not strictly needed (if German is well placed there and Allied are not currently contesting it).



  • Africa is afcorse of greater significance then Australia, but Australia( Oceania ) is still of great importance.

    and cyan, np, i wasnt tryin to be sarcastic or anything, just replied to your note.



  • With the guys that I play with, I’ve never seen a game where Japan heads south for Australia & NZ.  In fact, when I play the UK, I ALWAYS send my sub and transport w/ 2 infantry to New Guinea (against their 1 infantry).  I don’t think I’ve ever lost this battle (not that I couldn’t).  I figure if I take NG, that’s a 2 IPC swing in the Allies favor.  I also think it makes Japan use some navy to take out the sub and trn; which would alleviate some pressure for Hawaii or the India fleet.



  • It is not a move that is done in J1, and is not a move to do in the face of UK and USA fleet that assault Japan.
    In my view is an intermediate move that Japan may do while on the route for other objectives.



  • @Romulus:

    It is not a move that is done in J1, and is not a move to do in the face of UK and USA fleet that assault Japan.
    In my view is an intermediate view that Japan may do while on the route for other objective.

    Agree. with the exception afcorse if Japan units are ˝free˝ in the first turn, and dont have any ˝better˝ targets, then elimination of UK naval units would be a good move

    but i suppose you wanted to say this too, so i ve written it now



  • Yes I agree. If Japan have to deal with UK ships they are priority targets.
    My english sometime is unclear even to me… 😞

    My usual strategies with Japan is to build up to 5 or 6 TRNs, for J2-J3 (it depends from the board situation). 4 of them have to be used to shuttle land units to French Indocina and Buraytia. The remaining(s) are used to take other UK assets, retrieving the Japanese island based infantry in the process. Usually I have the time and the opportunity to get Australia.
    Then, as said, if Africa situation needs Japanese intervention I head for Madagascar. Otherwise I go to New Zealand before going to Hawaii.

    If UK and USA are willing to counter the Japanese expansion, however, this options may be impossible to get.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 19
  • 4
  • 2
  • 5
  • 8
  • 6
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

46
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts