Your thoughts…
Build just enough fleet so you don’t lose your fleet and then send the rest towards Russia to help Germany, probably by the Central route since you may not have the resources to go the southern route and the northern route is worth far less to Japan than the central route. (not only because of income to Japan, but also because it denies income to America, which is the threat to Japan in KJF.)
Yeah but going the central route only slows US down by 4 IPC’s. Yeah that’s an 8 IPC diffrence (-4 US / +4 JPN) but that could just mean they buy 1 destroyer instead of 1 battleship.
Do you beef up defence on larger income islands? Or do you press harder on mainland Aisa?
Keeping that in mind you still need to keep a contingency force on Japan proper.
LT
I say in a KJF scenario, Japan MUST fight on the main land in Asia, and here’s why:
Each of the islands on the Pacific is only worth one IPC each, whereas, the mainland territories are 2 or 3 IPC’s each. In order to survive a KJF, Japan needs to expand its limited income base really help the Germans spread out Allied resources.
Do you bother with Australia?
Do you put a couple of extra INF on E. Indies, Borneo or Philippines? Or do you Hail Marry it and dump FTR’s on those islands when the US gets in range?
LT
I say in a KJF scenario, Japan MUST fight on the main land in Asia, and here’s why:
Each of the islands on the Pacific is only worth one IPC each, whereas, the mainland territories are 2 or 3 IPC’s each. In order to survive a KJF, Japan needs to expand its limited income base really help the Germans spread out Allied resources.
@Cmdr:
Build just enough fleet so you don’t lose your fleet and then send the rest towards Russia to help Germany, probably by the Central route since you may not have the resources to go the southern route and the northern route is worth far less to Japan than the central route. (not only because of income to Japan, but also because it denies income to America, which is the threat to Japan in KJF.)
Japan has nine IPC on the mainland territories. Borneo, Phils and DEI = 11 alone.
Japan needs to fight in the water. And moving towards moscow is useless.
This is a KJF game. Germany doesnt need Japan’s help. Japan needs Germany’s.
If you are sending land units to attack moscow in a KJF game you are going to lose japan.
I was thinking with a KJF game Japan could do 1 of 2 strategies.
buy FTR’s and BMR’s. They can out maneuver the US navy and defend islands before they can get to them. They can also run strafe attacks. 1 for 1 Japan would do to bad. Yeah the US may choose to loose subs (10 IPC FTR vs 8 IPC SUB) but then the next cheapest navy unit would be other FTR’s. (I took Transports out of the running b/c they should have units on board. This would bring the value up from 8 to a min. of 14 with 2 INF)
build IC’s on principal islands (E. Indies, Borneo or Philippines) and mass INF. until Germany can do a partial Canadian Shield.
LT
Japan starts out with a major fleet advantage VS the US. Make sure you buy some fleet every turn, while still buying some land units (50/50 split might work), and you’ll find that US will be unable to make a viable push into the Pac until US5 or US6 or so.
By that time, Germany have made headway vs Russia.
DON’T bother adding units to the Islands! That has to be one of the worse moves possible in A&A. In the line of buying navy with Russia :-D :-D :-D
Japan starts out with a major fleet advantage VS the US. Make sure you buy some fleet every turn, while still buying some land units (50/50 split might work), and you’ll find that US will be unable to make a viable push into the Pac until US5 or US6 or so.
By that time, Germany have made headway vs Russia.
DON’T bother adding units to the Islands! That has to be one of the worse moves possible in A&A. In the line of buying navy with Russia :-D :-D :-D
My logic for that was when the US does get around to the pacific they island hop. The UK and Russia take mainland Asia. This leaves Japan with Japan proper and only 8 IPC’s.
Would you consider buying a second IC on one of those island to have two points to drop ships into the water?
Would you consider buying a second IC on one of those island to have two points to drop ships into the water?
In a KJF game?
No.
@LT04:
- buy FTR’s and BMR’s. They can out maneuver the US navy and defend islands before they can get to them. They can also run strafe attacks. 1 for 1 Japan would do to bad. Yeah the US may choose to loose subs (10 IPC FTR vs 8 IPC SUB) but then the next cheapest navy unit would be other FTR’s. (I took Transports out of the running b/c they should have units on board. This would bring the value up from 8 to a min. of 14 with 2 INF)
Too much IPC. You only get 3 fighters or 2 bombers for your 30 IPC. And with no troops, you lose the mainland much faster than normal.
And what strafe? USA screens with 1 sub and moves to Solomons. You just lost all your air against the USA Fleet. USA is never going to spread out for you. They are going to mass and move.
Buying a fighter or 2 later on is not a horrible idea. Buying them R1-3, especialy when you need troops too, is.
What’s really the point of buying an IC in the islands? Sure it’s safe from attack, but here’s the problems of an island build:
1. It is too far away from the action, and by the time the units built were viable, japan may have fallen already.
2. You only can place 1 unit on that place. If you’re Japan, you need somewhere where you can mobilize more units at one time.
3. Japan needs to solidify a foothold on Asia so it can have an effective income base if and when the KJF ploys are utilized. Having an IC on the mainland (Manchuria or Kwangtung) makes a Japanese defense more viable against UK and USSR attacks.
What’s really the point of buying an IC in the islands? Sure it’s safe from attack, but here’s the problems of an island build:…
2. You only can place 1 unit on that place. If you’re Japan, you need somewhere where you can mobilize more units at one time…
That’s why I suggested E. Indies, Borneo or Philippines. They all get a 3 or 4 build.
You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.
Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.
You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.
Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.
What about FIC? It’s still 1 transport move away and gives you a wider base w/o sacrificing Japan’s ability to reach it.
LT
@LT04:
You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.
Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.
What about FIC? It’s still 1 transport move away and gives you a wider base w/o sacrificing Japan’s ability to reach it.
LT
You can prob defend FIC fairly well. Its in range of your navy and AF. But Id be concerned about advancing troops from Indias direction. Manchuria and Kwang-Tung are easier to defend. The closer you get to mainland Japan, the easier to defend.
I guess I could see why every one says buy 3 transports your first turn instead of an IC. If they are going after Germany first Japan might want to put thier mainland IC in India since they would be on the advance. But if they need to defend they would want it closer to be able to reach it better.
Hmmm… How profound, yet simple.
Manchuria would be best then Japan would only need to defend two SZ’s then (The ones that border Japan proper.)
that is definitely one of the reasons to build transports at first with japan. Another is flexilbilty. transports are much more flexible than ICs. But the best reason, you want to ramp up to max production as fast as you can with japan. So you need a min of 4 transports on the mainland to transport your 8 units max per turn. I like 5 transports before my first IC build, as I use at least one to grab islands with/ or retake islands from UK/US.
If I bought a second IC with Japan, in a KJF game, it would be in Manchuria where it can be easily supported. Maybe Kwangtung.
And while 4 IPC (+4 Japan, -4 USA) may not sound like much, remember that every one counts. Also, Japan can easily increase their defensive power significantly with a single Aircraft Carrier purchase. (6 Fighters at sea instead of 4.)
But also keep in mind, the idea is to SLOW America down, not to STOP America. You just want to make America hesitate long enough to break Russia.
@Cmdr:
If I bought a second IC with Japan, in a KJF game, it would be in Manchuria where it can be easily supported. Maybe Kwangtung.
And while 4 IPC (+4 Japan, -4 USA) may not sound like much, remember that every one counts. Also, Japan can easily increase their defensive power significantly with a single Aircraft Carrier purchase. (6 Fighters at sea instead of 4.)
But also keep in mind, the idea is to SLOW America down, not to STOP America. You just want to make America hesitate long enough to break Russia.
Kwangtung would be the better place. I say that b/c that is a VT. If you need troops massed quickly to defend it why not have them home grown.
