@K-Ration:

The most Japan could hit it with would be 4 inf, 4 planes 1 bomber.

This calculation is incorrect, as is my other post where I state that Japan can hit India with three planes, a bomber and three infantry.

The plane from the Philipines and the plane from Japan cannot reach India and land on turn one (Sea Zones count as movement, remember? And you can’t land on a territory you just conquered) Therefore, the most that can attack India on turn one, assuming that the transport from the Philipines cannot land troops in India, is 3 infantry from Burma, the fighter in Burma, the fighter from Manchuria, and the Bomber from Japan.

This force will be faced with four british infantry, a british fighter, and two russian fighters. The Japanese are outnumbered in all respects.

If you ignore pearl harbor, it becomes possible for Japanese carrier aircraft from the Carolines and Philipenes to sink the UK transport screening India and allow two extra infantry from the Phillipenes to land in India, but this allows the US Navy to consolidate and wreak havoc.

If I were playing Japan, I would pursue the transports and Infantry policy and try to take India by outproducing and outshipping Infantry to Asia. This may become possible on turn two if the US player is reluctant to retreat into India, or the Japanese can force the UK to fight alone by invading both China and Sinkiang, abandoning Burma to the UK counterattack (or reinforcing it with four infantry and aircraft).

@K-Ration:

My normal strategy has been to place an IC in India, and hold off Japan. That has worked until recently. Lately, during his J1, he has been throwing (and sacrificing) all he has, and usually gets it. As it has been a thorn in his side for the majority of our games, I can now count on him doing everything to capture it - so I am now afraid to build it.

I’m the most experienced Japanese Player in our group. And if the UK plants a factory next to burma, I always expend maximum effort to seize it before the UK can build units there. Even by using the transport to reinforce India with troops from Africa, the Japanese can still send three infantry, three fighters and a bomber to blow up your fighter and slay your four infantry.

The solution is simple: Russia must reinforce India on turn one with a fighter or two. This weakens their defense on the Eastern Front, but makes the thorn in Japan’s side sting all the more. The USA should also move whatever surviving units they have to defend the Indian Factory. Combined with a Russian invasion of Manchuria on turn two, you can annoy Japan to no end.

In exchange for the Russian fighters, you may wish to consider moving the RAF in London to the Eastern Front, but since this occurs after the German turn, the Soviet defense is still weakened, at least for one turn.

@BigBlocky:

MIB, if you send 3 tanks against 1 infantry then your 3 tanks are left undefended against a russian counter attack or better yet, the allies coming in with a few infantry and ftrs to attrition out your Jap tanks. BB

You’re neglecting to consider the German portion of the timetable. By turn four, the Germans should be ready to push into moscow on turn five. Therefore, this strategy relies on risking Japanese tanks for a quick seizure of Russian territory. The idea is to come to the aid of the Germans as soon as possible. It’s far from perfect, and can be countered by a determined allied player, but that could be said about any strategy.

In the game I played last night, I played the Axis with a 74 IPC bid for economic victory, RR, and no new factories. The Allies spanked me bad, thanks to some atrocious die rolling (3 fighters and 1 bomber vs Battleship and three transports = all luftwaffe killed, battleship survived…) and that was just ONE of the disasters that befell me. Another was the extremely irritating fact that the USA spent 5 IPC’s on a tech roll on turn one and got heavy bombers…

Of course, one game I played as Japan vs some first time players and spent 25 IPC’s on tech rolls on turn one, and got Heavy Bombers AND Industrial Tech. So I got to feel the same agony those new guys felt. That was a short game, just like last night’s seven turn fiasco.

@BigBlocky:

OK RE: ftrs on brit carrier. You were talking about taking the US fleet on a pacific adventure with 2 ftrs,BB

Where the hell did I say this? Must’ve been in some other thread…

@BigBlocky:

If you build a carrier and ftr, the ftr is not on the carrier so why build it? BB

Usually this is part of my mad plan to fill the skies over Russia with seven to nine Allied fighters.

@BigBlocky:

If Brit builds a carrier and transport and has the one from Canada and the US still has hers then the fleet is stil thin, 3 transports and a carrier. You need the 2 US ftrs to make this work.

After building the carrier, the US planes STILL land on it, you silly goose. The RAF fighter moves to Russia on turn two. But I generally don’t like the whole carrier thing as it lets Japan get off scott free and keeps the US planes from defending Russia. Right now, I’m looking at saving up the UK and building a massive fleet on turn two, I think that’s the best option. That way, southern europe can be threatened on turn four by the americans.

@BigBlocky:

MIB, how often do you capture Moscow with the Japs on turn 4? BB

Never. The idea is to be knocking on their door by turn four or five, not actually invading on turn four. The Japanese have assaulted on turn five and six however, after a substantial german attack. Usually it’s the germans who take the Russian treasury, but the idea is to be there on the other side with the Japanese. A Russia with 8-14 IPC income tends to be quite feeble in their counterattacks.

BBIf the russians leave 1 infantry on each of the territories next to Moscow, do you exchange tanks to get the territory? How do you defend your factories, with tanks only? It takes 3 turns for infantry built on Japan to get next to Moscow. With 2 factories you must defend 2 spots AND the territory next to russian to plan to attack from. You can only build 6 units per round with 2 factories, you should plan to lose 4/round just retaking territories the allies retook…

I have no problem sending three tanks vs one infantry. The real problem begins on turn five. If the Germans are doing poorly, then the Russians will likely devote resources to take back their Asian territories. This is when Japan must look at moving to africa to win an economic victory while rolling their six tanks a turn taking and retaking Asia. But if the Germans do well, then Russia is out of the Game, and an economic victory quickly follows.

I’m unclear where the allied threat to the factories you refer to comes from. I usually take China and India on turn one. I land all aircraft at the factory built on turn one in Burma. This prevents the two infantry at Sinkiang from getting any funny ideas. The two existing transports also ship infantry to the factory, and/or ship them to Manchuria or Kwangtung if I think the Russians are liable to come across the border.

If the Russians mass their forces, they can be smashed on turn two or three. If not, it takes a little longer to move across the Russian steppes and tundra, but a larger, more concentrated force arrives to besiege Moscow.

On turn two a second factory is built in either Manchuria or Kwantung. (Manchuria being slightly better). and on turn three and four, six tanks a turn roll across Asia. Sometimes it pays to build a factory in Sinkiang, as this saves a turn of movement. But I generally dislike this for some reason.

@BigBlocky:

Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then? BB

That’s the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.

@BigBlocky:

I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB

My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler’s path to regain the momentum.

@BigBlocky:

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.BB

That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.

@BigBlocky:

If you move it up to Wake island BB

I don’t move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.

This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.

Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.

@BigBlocky:

Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then? BB

That’s the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.

@BigBlocky:

I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB

My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler’s path to regain the momentum.

@BigBlocky:

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.BB

That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.

@BigBlocky:

If you move it up to Wake island BB

I don’t move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.

This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.

Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.

@Xi:

I agree with BBs plan. Yet, I rarely build an IC for Japan unless my opponent makes it to easy in Asia.

The reason Japan builds a factory or two in Asia is not for infantry. It’s to place three to six Tanks a turn into asia faster than transports can get them there. Armor can get you knocking on the door of Moscow on turn four, while Infantry will delay you till at least turn six or seven.

All of my strategies focus on the TIMETABLE. Coordination and timing becomes indispensable in this sort of plan. Basically, transports might get more infantry onto asia, but they’re too slow. Japan needs to be on the same page as Germany, and the goal is to have a one-two punch on moscow in turn five. This is not possible if you focus on transports, which might be much more flexible, but do not help Germany out at all.

@Meijing:

I wonder, whether it’s really a good idea for Japan to go after Pearl Harbour.

Yes.

@Meijing:

What can the American fleet do?

Famous Last Words.

Assuming you avoid pearl harbor entirely, this leaves a fleet of carrier, 2 fighters, a battleship, a transport and a submarine to take an infantry from Hawaii and Midway (assuming the Japanese transports stayed on the Asian coast) or two guys from the West Coast to Alaska. On Turn Two, the americans land in the Soviet Far East and begin ferrying troops into Russia, prolonging the Japanese rollback of Russian territory for a good two to three turns.

Or, if the Japanese Fleet retreats back to the Sea of Japan to prevent the above scenario, Macarthur’s Island Hopping Campaign can begin immediately. Possibly threatening the takeover of the Philipenes by turn three.

The weakness in not attacking the American Fleet while it’s in two seperate chunks cannot be overstated. It is easier to handle while not unified and reinforced. Not only that, but if the entire US Navy retreats into the Atlantic, then it places an even greater burden on Germany, who does not need the sort of aggravation that can be caused by an extra USA fighter and battleship in Africa/Western Europe on turn three.

I can see why the Allies win 100% of BigBlocky’s games. The Axis simply isn’t aggressive enough. In order for the Axis to win consistently (as it has in my games, despite all odds) the Axis MUST turn every game into a crap shoot, and then (this is the tricky part) hope that superior die rolling will win the day for them. If they don’t play the dice game and go for a purely statistical victory… well, the allies have 90 IPC’s and the Axis has 57 IPC’s, QED.

The successful Axis turns everything into a lucky gamble. In our group, Fred and I have always been able to use the audacious risky nature of our tactics and psychological warfare (trash-talking) to intimidate the allies into overly conservative play. If we can delay them just ONE turn with our bad mouthing, then we can use other means to delay their attacks even more, allowing the Axis to secure an economic victory.

It also helps that our regular opponents haven’t quite got the message that they are part of an alliance. They understand it in theory, but then go on to carry out some selfish plan that the Axis is able to exploit for even further delays.