1942 Japanese strategy

@Imperious:

I would invite the US when its to the Japanese advantage. IN 1942 they have too many ships and can easily overpower Japan, unless Japan basically just buys naval. IN 1941 i would love US to start something, but not in 42. Id rather show them my resolve and watch them bother somebody else so i can quickly get my IPC’s. I think if you don’t show your hand the US player will buy all pacific because that’s where her strength is. But if i can force them to move back i waste their time.

I agree with your 41’ assessment. Not so much in 42’. Assuming that Japan loses roughly 2 fighters on J1 and that the SS/DD(if they survived that attack) in sz53 are toast, that still leaves 2 BB, 2 CV, 1 CA, 5 fig, 1 bmb(142 IPC’s value) vs. 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 SS, 1 DD(or 2 if you count the one in sz10), 3 fig, 2 bmb (100 IPC’s value). You could leave the New Guinea BB/CV to conduct operations in the south Pacific and still outnumber the US with what’s left.

Had to edit I made a math error.

@Imperious:

I think using ideas from AAR is a big mistake in AA50. AA50 was designed to force different conclusions and stop these ideas. The entire dynamic is different and if it was the same the game would be a mistake to design in this manner. Tactics are one thing but not strategy.

I don’t doubt you. I just think that my Revised strategy provides me with a solid baseline to work from. I won’t be inflexible if it proves unmanageable.

@U-505:

Second, that would also mean that an SS remains so the only unit to be able to get past it is the US SS so that makes an attack there 1 bmb, 1 fig, 1 SS vs. 2 fig, 1 CV. That still favors the Japanese. The only thing that you have to worry about is the SS sinking the CV in opening fire. But, I think it’s balanced out by the fact that while the chances that one side hits 2 to 1 or better over the other are not probable, they are more probable for the Japanese than the US. Assuming the US gets 1 hit and not by the SS, just lose the CV anyway. You can pretty much expect (roughly 92-93%) at least 1 hit back and by the Japanese aircraft so the US would have to lose the fighter at least. Only a 4 IPC loss, which is acceptable. And assuming 2 hits each, which is what you probably expect, if both of the Japanese hits are from their fighters (most likely) then the SS can’t be used as fodder so you’re looking at 1 bmb, 1 fig for 1 CV, 1 fig. Again, an acceptable 2 IPC loss.

That rule changed….

Submarines: Subs still have that powerful first strike ability. Destroyers are still a subs primary nemesis. So what’s new? Well to begin with subs can now pass through enemy occupied sea zones. At the same time your ships can pass through (ignore) an enemy sea zone containing only enemy submarines and lowly transports. The fact is, if you want to conduct an amphibious assault and the enemy has subs and or transports in the sea zone, you don’t have to attack them! Use those big battleships and cruisers to bombard the territory instead of having to clear the sea zone first.

SS and transports no longer prevent movement. Only defensive 'surface ships" do so.

So the sub will not prevent the US fleet from moving through the zone.

Well, that’s what I get for not reading the rules.  :lol:

It’s kinda funny that, at the very least, a bunch of undefended TP’s can pass through sub infested waters without being interdicted or suffering an attack. Seems like some of the things they changed were only done so that they could say they changed something.

My only intention was to preserve the CA because it is clearly more valuable than a fighter. But, it appears that my strategy would  require that the CA be used in the sz53 attack. It’s not really so bad, though. The extra fighter freed up to attack China gives me more flexibility there. Six of one half a dozen of the other, I guess.

I think I like a factory build. Maybe with 2 transports, and 2 ipc saved for the following round.

Manchuria is still only 5 spaces away from Moscow and Stalingrad, if you push threw the center instead of the north. A full force blitz into Suiyuan could be the ticket to putting early pressure on Russia and stacking Kazakh or Novos. Indochina also has a certain appeal, even if it has been nerfed down to 2 ipcs, but its not nearly as easy to set up a troop train out of Indo as it is out of Manchuria. The latter is just much closer to home and easier to defend from the Americans. I don’t know though. Will have to play more games to see what works best.

Right now I think its probably safer for the Jap fleet to rush west. Kill the British fleet and drive towards India, rather than going East to start a cascading trade of ships with USA. ;)

If you go to sz 38, you can put like 5 fighters on the British fleet, though I’m sure thats a bit overkill. You probably only need four fighters, and could still come out of it with a full carrier deck, so you don’t even need 38. Also, I think it might be a decent option to just forgo the attack into Hupeh, in order to concentrate your airpower on the more critical battles.  Unless you want to just keep the transport at home to unload in Manchukuo.  If you leave a dude to defend Kiangsu, then you also have an option to go north to defend the Manchuria factory and just trade Kiangsu for a round, should one of the battles go disastrously wrong. Or you could go light on one of the other battles and try to knock out all 4 spaces in the opening round, which really isn’t all that difficult to do.

Actually you hit on something when you mentioned Indochina. An IC in Burma might be worth a look. The fact that it takes 2 turns to get a TP down there makes it economical to put one there. And a second one in India, once you take it, would provide you with more production than one in East Indies and 2 TP’s.

That way your Japan based TP’s can handle the north/center routes and the IC’s can take the southern route. With Japan making huge amounts of cash in the midgame you might end up with an IC in manchuria as well but I think you’d be better off with the first one being in Burma to keep your TP’s close enough to Japan to constantly be landing troops every turn.

mmmm Burma
That is intriguing isn’t it :-D
If it comes down to a production race, that would definitely put more pressure on Caucasus.

What do you guys think about avoiding sz 53 attack to bait the Americans into a Pacific war?

Since Japan starts in 42, they have this option (which has traditionally gone to the Russians and British) to set off the Pacific game. By conserving 100% of the Jap fleet you can pretty much redirect all your air against China, Russia, or the British in India. And if you pull down a Pacific purchase from USA in the first round, then at least you can temp the Allies away from an all out KGF.

I get the feeling that Germany and Italy will need all the help they can get in the first two rounds, and 30-60 Allied IPCs in the Pacific instead of the Atlantic might be a little easier for the Axis to work with. What do you guys think of it? Will the USA player just pull the carrier and fighter back, and throw them at Germany? Or will they press the attack in the Pacific? And if Pacific, wouldn’t it be better to set this up on Japan’s terms, with a plan in place? Just a thought :)

@Black_Elk:

What do you guys think about avoiding sz 53 attack to bait the Americans into a Pacific war?

Well, if you look at it from a purely IPC standpoint you’re usually trading 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 SS(26 IPC’s) for 1 CV, 1 fig, 1 SS(30 IPC’s). With all the aircraft you free up you can make some pretty strong attacks in China or Bury. I think I’ll try that in my next game.

@Imperious:

I would not bait US into anything. Id hope they buzz off and once i am stronger, i attack them and make them run back to me but not until i am at near 45 IPC and control of India.

Once they’re gone, the US rarely comes back. The best you can do is take Hawaii and trade Alaska every turn, but as long as they have the shuck train (W US to W Can to E Can) in place, it’s only a partial disruption of their troop movements that will be adjusted for in 1 turn and they won’t need to build a Pacific navy at all.

The way it looks to me is that if the US doesn’t go into the Pacific on US1, they never will; no matter how much pressure you try to put on them.

i don’t know about that. i mean, if i was USA and JAPAN was knocking on my door with a large fleet, i’d suddenly become very interested in the pacific. the USA player can afford to take two theatres at once. i guess it just comes down to personal player preference

The way it looks to me is that if the US doesn’t go into the Pacific on US1, they never will; no matter how much pressure you try to put on them.

Yeah, that was my thinking exactly. :)

The only problem I could see with the idea, would be if you don’t attack sz 53 and then the USA player just pulls out and sends everything to the Atlantic anyway. Of course, if that happens, then at least you’d be in a better position to race towards Africa and meet them in the center of the board.

By concentrating on India/China/Russia instead of sz 53, and offering a little trash talk to the Americans in the process, you have a pretty good chance of drawing the US player into a Pacific purchase. If nothing else, it would be a sporting challenge to the Allies, to play the game in a more entertaining and historically sensible way.

:-D

@Black_Elk:

mmmm Burma
That is intriguing isn’t it :-D
If it comes down to a production race, that would definitely put more pressure on Caucasus.

What do you guys think about avoiding sz 53 attack to bait the Americans into a Pacific war?

I like your thinking.

I’ve only ever played the '41 scenario, but let me tell you… the game has changed.  Now it’s setup so that America HAS to contend with Germany and devote resources there.  Let America come, I wouldn’t even factor it into your first turn’s build.  If they come for you then you’ve already won the game, because Germany will steamroll Russia without American assisstance.

You have to look at the big picture, scaring USA off is doing a disservice to your team.

@Alair:

@Black_Elk:

mmmm Burma
That is intriguing isn’t it :-D
If it comes down to a production race, that would definitely put more pressure on Caucasus.

What do you guys think about avoiding sz 53 attack to bait the Americans into a Pacific war?

I like your thinking.

I’ve only ever played the '41 scenario, but let me tell you… the game has changed.  Now it’s setup so that America HAS to contend with Germany and devote resources there.  Let America come, I wouldn’t even factor it into your first turn’s build.  If they come for you then you’ve already won the game, because Germany will steamroll Russia without American assisstance.

You have to look at the big picture, scaring USA off is doing a disservice to your team.

Agreed 100 %.
And if we are going by that picture….Has anyone ever considered an IC buy on one of the two 4-IPC islands?
I did it in yesterday’s 41 game, but the Allies gave up after that round, so I never got to use it, and I had 3 transports laying there already, so I might be abit biased.

If you place it on East Indies on J1, you can set up invading forces at J2, targeting Australia (NO, plus -2 for UK, an even bigger help for Germany, along with the distracted USA), or set up for India (NO, plus -3 for UK), or set up for 5/6 territories in Africa (French-Madagascar, It. Africa, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Persia, no explanation for benefits needed), or replenish the forces that go for China, opening Russia’s backdoor.

There you go, with one IC, you are targeting for 4 possible goals, which all help you, and Germany & Italy.
If you retreat your initial fleet into that area aswell, leaving only some protection for your 2 transports (I bought one aswell) at Japan, USA won’t be able to hit you on USA1, and needs to enter the pacific theatre himself, giving you the defense position, which isn’t a bad thing, as the entire theatre is yours already.

Let him come, and strike him with a bunch of subs, or planes, or whatever. Even if you are busy with just USA (which is easy, having both Japan and East Indies feeding the navy, striking him from two sides), that’s a good thing. No combined allied attack in Europe.

I’m looking at it now, and out of Japan’s limited '42 options, this seems kinda interesting.
Not good, but interesting  :-D

Possible purchase? IC, TP, 1 art (so you can fill both your TP’s on J2), and a research token. Then pray to god for Improved shipyard  :wink:

As Japan I always build an IC in the East Indies turn 2 regardless of setup. East Indies can reach Egypt, India, Australia, Persia and other parts of Africa while facing little threat from anyone. After turn 3 or 4 you’re ready for an India IC and can start pumping 7 units toward caucasus.

As for the Pacific theatre. A smart US player will send a large fleet off the coast of Alaska with supporting bombers in Alaska as well as 3 or 4 counterattacking subs off San Francisco. If Japan strikes their navy the rest will be destroyed with sneak attacks and bombers. The US can keep this up until there are no boats left and then an invasion force can move in. Part of this allied strategy invloves the UK going all out in the Atlantic because it’ll be awhile before the US can help BUT not letting Japan take over the world will be worth it in the long run. In '42 Japan has to buy at least a sub and destroyer to go with two more transports. The US navy is very strong to start '42 plus you may not attack the carrier, fighter, destroyer in Pearl Harbour.