Japan war machine



  • I have read about all of the post, and there is a point that seem to come back that I disagree…

    You are all saying that America can afford to build about everything when other countries can’t. I personnaly think that the richest country in this game after two or three rounds is usually Japan. Unless there is an inexperienced player playing this country, they manage usually to take 6 more IPC quite easily. They take both China and Sinkiang and either India or Soviet Far East, then they go nagging Alaska or Australia. So normally at the end of the second turn they have about 31 IPC of production and the States 32 IPC.

    If India is down, they can manage in one turn to build quite a naval stronghold and go bug about anybody, if they play more conservative on land. Also, with two or even three ICs onland, they may have quite an arsenal quite fast. So I personnaly think that the key to the victory for the axis come from Japan. Germany has to go very defensive until Japan come`s by.

    So when I play the american, I like to split my strike force: few transport to ship some men in Africa, and the other going to nag the Japs. Because if you`re not carefull, Japan can come very quick a very strong fighting machine.



  • Japan makes a lot of money, yes, but they have to spend hard money to defend what they got, and their starting IC is in an inconvientant location. This means they must spend money on transports to get infantry to the mainland. Then they must march their troops toward Russia. This means Japan has a slow reaction time, they must plan ahead.

    The US can hold on to most of it’s wealth and not really worry about supply or defense. A US player can get units to Finland in 3 turns, less forward planning is needed.



  • I not sure where the point of contention came from. Japan is easily the most power country in thegame ,but the most is also expected from it. It must somehow manke a breakthrough to Russia, before the Allies can to Germany. However, this is through transports and inf, not through ICs. Usually one IC is all that’s needed (and not until later in the game). If you build more than one, you risk slowing yourself down.



  • Japan starts to make good money pretty quick, yes, but they can’t just do anything they want. Russia will fill the void if Japan does not keep pressure in Asia - trust me. Japan is constrained by the fact that they must move quickly to help Germany out in Europe, because a good Allied player will be threatening Germany by the 4th turn at the latest.

    One strong piece of advice for you though. Your idea that you can divide the US forces and attack both Japan and Germany is a bad one. Any moderate Axis player will beat you every time if you don’t pick one, and only one, country for all of the Allies to focus on. I personally think that the US can’t hurt Japan even if it puts all its resources in the Pacific, much less only half of them. Japan can easily fight off any US harassment if they play it reasonably well. The US is better off putting everything into a German invasion. As soon as I see my Allied opponent dividing his attack, I know it is just a matter of time before I win.



  • @Anonymous:

    I personnaly think that the richest country in this game after two or three rounds is usually Japan. Unless there is an inexperienced player playing this country, they manage usually to take 6 more IPC quite easily. They take both China and Sinkiang and either India or Soviet Far East, then they go nagging Alaska or Australia. So normally at the end of the second turn they have about 31 IPC of production and the States 32 IPC.

    If India is down, they can manage in one turn to build quite a naval stronghold and go bug about anybody, if they play more conservative on land. Also, with two or even three ICs onland, they may have quite an arsenal quite fast. So I personnaly think that the key to the victory for the axis come from Japan. Germany has to go very defensive until Japan come`s by.

    Absolutely. Most experienced players would agree with all of this except that you don’t need two or three ICs on the mainland - one should be plenty. The majority of your effort should be in transporting large amounts of infantry onto the mainland every turn.

    @Anonymous:

    So when I play the american, I like to split my strike force: few transport to ship some men in Africa, and the other going to nag the Japs. Because if you`re not carefull, Japan can come very quick a very strong fighting machine.

    The problem here is that you are using common sense! 🙂

    It’s not that fighting Japan through the Pacific is bad, it’s just that it is more efficent to fight Japan through the Atlantic! That sounds crazy because it goes against history and common sense, but it is a case of the dynamics of the board game:

    You can accomplish the same strategic goals by sending US troops to the Atlantic, with two important advantages: 1.) You can help defend Russia from Japan easier - Russia proper is only four moves away from the Eastern US(!), and 2.) your troops will concentrated and able to threaten both Germany and Japan, giving you much greater flexibility.



  • Absolutely. Most experienced players would agree with all of this except that you don’t need two or three ICs on the mainland - one should be plenty. The majority of your effort should be in transporting large amounts of infantry onto the mainland every turn.

    Even then, you don’t want to build in IC (preferably in India) until later on in the game - J4 at least. 1 IC should be enough (3 arm per turn).

    It’s not that fighting Japan through the Pacific is bad, it’s just that it is more efficent to fight Japan through the Atlantic! That sounds crazy because it goes against history and common sense, but it is a case of the dynamics of the board game

    To clarify what Ansbach is trying to say: “Going after Japan = Bad. Going after Germany = Good.” Now I have seen some pretty good Pacific strategies - though they require the coordination of ALL Allied players.



  • A good Pacific strategy would include an IC in both Sinkang and India, a Russian First turn attack, a British 1st turn attack, and a small bid. If its a large bid, the German player will destroy Russia quickly.



  • Well, this assumes no RR. Without, the Allies will probably win no matter what strategy (if any) is pursued.



  • Well yeah, my strategies will vary depending upon rules and the bid.



  • I read somewhere that until VE-Day, the US was spending 90% of its war production fighting Germany & only 10%(!) vs. Japan. In a lot of ways, this is because Germany was a more high-tech and economically powerful country. With just this amount of material, the US production capacity was so great that they could attack vast island fortresses w/ a preponderance of well-trained men & planes.

    Of course in A & A 10% of anyone’s income is pretty insignifigant. But the principle is the same–use the majority of the USAs vast income against one Axis power. The easiest mark is Germany in terms of swiftness, but coming in against Japan (and I will receive criticism for this) is, I think, a viable option because a clever USA player can so distract Japan’s Asia buildup that the attack vs. Russia is slowed signifigantly. Basically I think each Western Power ought to fight mainly just 1 Axis power NOT divide their forces–USA and UK should each have a distinct target. Depending on the situation, I think Japan CAN BE a viable target for each.

    Basically what I’m saying is its a tradeoff. By ganging up on Germany or Japan the Allies may be able to score a quick victory. But if things don’t go well, the other Axis power may be able to damage the Allies enough to prevent this. On the other hand, while I think fighting both Axis powers is therefore a good idea, you don’t want to divide your strength between them so much that you are ineffective everywhere. A good balance is best, if that makes any sense… :-?

    Ozone27



  • I agree with Ozone.



  • I read somewhere that until VE-Day, the US was spending 90% of its war production fighting Germany & only 10%(!) vs. Japan. In a lot of ways, this is because Germany was a more high-tech and economically powerful country. With just this amount of material, the US production capacity was so great that they could attack vast island fortresses w/ a preponderance of well-trained men & planes.

    Whoa, I do know that the US navy is the Pacific was very, very big.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

34
Online

14.0k
Users

34.3k
Topics

1.4m
Posts