Japan needs to continuously assess the pace of the game. Is Germany going to press fast and hard? Or is it going to play a more defensive game? Is Germany changing the pace of the game from aggressive to defensive, or defensive to aggressive? Apart from that, what are the threats to Japan?
The Japan “basic” open is with UK having destroyed the Japanese transport at Kwangtung, and a UK submarine at New Guinea threatening the French Indochina sea zone. There may or may not be an industrial complex at India, UK may have sent its India Ocean fighter to the US fleet at Hawaii or the US forces at China or a fortified Buryatia.
Japan attacks the Hawaiian Islands fleet with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber (fighter can land on Wake), hits China with loads of infantry and air, and if possible uses the Japan transport to hit Buryatia, or alternatively to move units to French Indochina. When noncombat moves end, Japan should have three or four transports in the sea zone east of Japan, a battleship, a carrier, a fighter or two, and a destroyer. Japan should have a stack of fighters on French Indochina, and a stack of infantry on China.
The key points are these - first, Japan controls the sea zone east of Japan. This allows transports to pick up and drop off from Wake, Okinawa, and Phillipines, plus Japan itself, to French Indochina and/or Buryatia. In particular, Wake and Okinawa are important; taking infantry off the islands means Japan is using all its resources to full effect. Dropping to Buryatia is the fastest way for Japan to put pressure on Moscow. Dropping to French Indochina is the fastest way for Japan to put pressure towards Caucasus and Africa.
Japan controls 6 units on Japan, 1 on Okinawa, 1 on Wake, 2 on Phillipines, total 10 ground. With a transport taking 2 of those away, and building three transports, that leaves 4 transports on Japan’s second turn to transport 8 units. Japan’s third turn requires a second turn build of six ground units plus either an industrial complex, another transport or two, subs, or fighters to taste. 3 of Japan’s four transports will take the six ground units from Japan’ the 4th transport can take the Japanese infantry from East Indies (if that transport moves to French Indochina on Japan’s second turn). Even with Japan building no ground units on its first turn, it uses its transports to full capacity through at least turn three very easily.
Japan must absolutely control the sea zone east of Japan. There are various Allied threats that can make it a horrible risk for Japan, so Japan must watch out for them. For example, UK sub at Solomon Islands, UK carrier at Phillipines, UK cruiser at Kwangtung, UK fighters on Moscow (from London), UK fighter on Buryatia, UK bomber on Novosibirsk threatens a huge attack. Battleship/carrier/fighter/destroyer can neutralize a lot, but not all, so Japan must be careful!
Another key point is the destruction of the US carrier and fighter at Hawaii. The carrier and fighter can form a base of US operations in the Pacific, jumpstarting US’s development against Japan. Even though Japan has huge power to fight against US development in the Pacific, destroying US’s carrier and fighter frees Japan to move its forces towards Africa and the Mediterranean.
Another key point is a stack of Japanese infantry on China. The bigger the stack, the more potential Japan has to push to Sinkiang next turn, from where it can hit Kazakh and Novosibirsk, which are valuable territories and that pressure Moscow.
Another key point is a destroyer in the sea zone east of Japan. A destroyer can chase subs away; without Allied subs threatening Japan’s fleet, Japan is free to move its battleship and carrier elsewhere. (So long as the Allies don’t have an air threat in range of course!)
The final key point is Japanese fighters on French Indochina. From here, they can reach and land on Caucasus or Ukraine. If Germany presses into those territories, Japan can use those fighters to reinforce those positions. That doesn’t mean Japan can be stupid about reinforcement. For example, if Germany tries to hold Ukraine with an obviously inadequate force, that would still be inadequate with the addition of Japanese fighters, Japan shouldn’t throw itself under the bus. (On the other hand, even if Japanese fighters are destroyed, if it ends up being costly enough for the Russians, it can still be worth it. Understanding when Japanese fighters should be put at risk and the pacing of Germany’s attack is key!)
–
That’s the “basic” open of destroyer / three transports. There are slight variations, like when UK takes French Indochina or Borneo on UK1; Japan can use the Japanese transport to retake the territory along with appropriate other moves.
The game then changes depending on Allied moves.
If the Allies built an India industrial complex, on Japan’s second turn, they can dump a load of units to French Indochina, and retreat the units from China to French Indochina. This usually means abandoning Manchuria to Russia, but it’s worth the quick control of an industrial complex on India. Alternatively, Japan can let UK and Russia waste resources trying to protect India, while Japan trades territory with Russia at Manchuria/Buryatia.
If the Allies built a US Pacific fleet, Japan can build fighters or subs starting on its second turn, along with cheap infantry.
If the Allies are bailing out of Asia, Japan can build an industrial complex soon to add momentum to Japan’s attack.
–
The other Japan opens are industrial complex/2 transports (for a moderately heavy press, but less freedom of Japan’s fleet), and double industrial complex. If Germany’s game is superdeveloped, Japan may choose to ignore the Hawaii Islands fleet attack to use the cruiser support shot on Buryatia.
–
Comments -
1. I would only build double industrial complex, or industrial complex/2 transports in case of early extreme pressure by Germany. Typically that means something like Germany managed to capture both West Russia and Caucasus on G1, and Russia has nothing but infantry and a tank or two to fight with. Typically in such situations I’d ignore Hawaiian Islands in favor or putting maximum early pressure on Russia.
2. Against an industrial complex in India and/or Sinkiang, I tend to bulk up at French Indochina and let Russia make gains in the north. Japan can put a lot of pressure against the India industrial complex very quickly, and once the India IC falls, Japan’s progress usually cannot be stopped. This is particularly the case with German fighter reinforcement.
It is possible for India to be well protected, and Japan to be horribly pressured quite early, in which case quick capture of the India IC is perhaps no longer possible. But if Germany has been playing properly, Germany’s position in Europe should be amazingly strong. There is absolutely no way for the Allies to put extreme pressure on Japan without making sacrifices elsewhere.
3. Against a US fleet, I tend to start with submarine and infantry builds on Japan’s second turn, and get a German fighter on a Japanese carrier as soon as possible to stop US destroyer blocks. What typically happens is if US tries to press too hard too fast, I’ll smack them down with cheap subs. If US takes a little time, I’m developing in Asia with infantry and air. US will typically go to Solomons, from where it can threaten East Indies, Borneo, and Japan. If Japan takes up position at French Indochina sea zone, that helps protect East Indies and Borneo; Japan can often be protected by infantry/fighters. The game basically becomes one of Japan staying out of reach of the US fleet, but forcing US’s fleet to stay away from Japan’s fleet, grinding US’s progress in the Pacific to a halt while Japan and Germany continue to press on Russia.
Hobbes favors Japanese fighters over subs if I understand correctly, which makes a lot of sense, because Jap fighters can be used to bolster Japan itself, can be used for additional support in Asia, and have the freedom to move to Europe to bolster German positions. My counterargument is that a battle against the US navy becomes far more costly for Japan if Japan has no cheap sub fodder, and if Japan doesn’t start on subs right away, it won’t have them in position to hit US’s navy when they’re needed. On the balance, I think the theory for air support is more sound than the theory for sub support, though.