I have to concur with the others who have posted. A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go. If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia. While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units. Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia). Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too). That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia. So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it. If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about. YAKUT is the key for Japan. Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces. The drain on Russia: defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support. And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)
"Alternate" Japan Naval Strats
-
So you recommend only a single initial tear at Allied shipping?
If so, do you go for the US tranny also, or just the UK surface fleet (excluding India tranny, which I leave to Japan to handle)?
And then you pool those figs for use for trading a 3 IPC territory that both Germany AND Russia will get paid for, and allow US and UK to start landing forces in Turn 3?
I just don;t see it. If, as everyone here seems to say, the death knell of the Axis is Allied reinforcements in karelia (and then in Russia), then why would you ever do anything that would allow those reinforcements to land FASTER?
-
If, as everyone here seems to say, the death knell of the Axis is Allied reinforcements in karelia (and then in Russia), then why would you ever do anything that would allow those reinforcements to land FASTER?
Well I consider it more important for Germany to be able to keep the bulk of the Allies forces in Karelia, rather than in Moscow. Without the fighters, the Allies will be able to put more in Moscow (usually after a Germany kamikazee assault on Karelia at the critical point) which will make it harder for Japan to take Moscow.
-
I posted my reply as a new thread… a no-bid Axis victory. It seemed to fit more for a new thread (since it was German AF usage) rather than the existing thread of Japan sending their fleet into the Atlantic.
-
I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?
-
I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?
The US would have to take it back on the same round I took it in order to prevent me from sailing through. And in most cases, the US does not have multiple tanks in Western US that could sweep down through Mexico to re-take Panama from 2 INF. Thus Japan could use the canal, grab their INF from the other side, and proceed to raid in the Atlantic.
-
Whoops I’m sorry, I was looking at the revised map not the old one. The panama canal is directly connected to the Eastern US in revised so it’s extremely easy to deflate this strategy in revised.
-
Whoops I’m sorry, I was looking at the revised map not the old one. The panama canal is directly connected to the Eastern US in revised so it’s extremely easy to deflate this strategy in revised.
Damn you are right! Now if THAT is not a goofy map change! LOL Panama connected to Eastern US… That is as much of a screw up as Western Canada bordering the Atlantic Ocean in Classic.
-
Any strategy with begins with consolodate is inferior as it wastes an entire turn.
-
You have to reply with a little more substance than that limited. I think that ncswitch has shown a plausible alternate strategy. What you are I think missing is that the japan navy is not “missing” anything. They are optimizing their mainland landing by consolidating in the japan seas. They don’t even need to consolidate as it were, they could always send a BB and transports up to SFE as well.
-
Also, these alternate strategies are in direct response to specific opening moves by other nations and were posted as a way to “try something new” that also had the unique component of being so crazy as to be viable :-)
Suggested Topics
