Japan Revisited

Huh? India can’t be reached by 4 inf; only 2 inf can reach it.

My problem with that Strategy is that no tanks (well, probably 1) will be on the continent before turn 3. You also have to babysit the 4 TRN, and that’s annoying. Without any DD, the US and UK SUB will cause trouble. And I don’t have any IPC to spend on DDs….

I’m a big fan of 2 ICs. But I’m starting to think it lacks versatility (trouble helping in AFR, JP moves too predictable).

So, IC + 2 TRN for me from now on.

(edit - this is in response to last post, not original post.)

Japan transports worked so damn well in Revised, I can’t imagine that Spring 1942 is much different.  Of course, now you DO have two Allied subs running around, but I think that’s an inconvenience the Japanese can easily overcome.

I suppose I never bothered to post on a Japan strategy because it always seemed clear to me - you get 5 or 6 transports ASAP, using 4 to transport infantry(mostly) with a couple artillery and a few tanks from Japan to Asia, and 2 to pull infantry from the islands, either to reinforce Asia, to run around screwing with Australia, or to hit remote targets at Africa - or ALL of those in turn.

You do want Jap tanks on the mainland early, but I think it’s best NOT to try to mass early on - the tanks just don’t have enough punching power against a good Russian player to threaten anything worthwhile.  Best use infantry plus air support.  You want a COUPLE tanks, yes, but best concentrate on infantry early; that’s all the more that will be knocking on Moscow’s door when push comes to shove.

Once you have the production lines rolling, it’s time to think about an IC in India or French Indochina.  Probably not BOTH though, until extremely late game.  I use transports a LOT with Japan.

As far as hunting down the UK/US subs - well, keep transports with battleships, or with carrier/destroyer groups.  Not too difficult considering Japan’s massive navy/air force; you don’t need a fleet of destroyers; three is plenty.

If you’re thinking destroyers are “too expensive” - I’d say think of the benefit to grabbing Australia/New Zealand, and utilizing the Japanese infantry on the islands.  There’s 24 IPC worth of infantry on the spare islands; I can certainly blow 16 IPCs on destroyers to get that 24 IPC worth of infantry into play.

I’m really not a fan of two Japanese ICs.  Think of this - say you spend 15 IPC at French Indochina to produce THREE units.  I’ll spend 14 IPC for transports to get FOUR units to the mainland a turn.  Furthermore, whatever you produce at an IC must pop out at that territory.  There’s a slight delay on transports, but they drop their cargo anywhere along the Asian coast, or even hit Alaska, Australia, or Africa as desired.

Reply to original post - few things.

1.  Noticed you moved transport from east of Japan to west of Japan.  My preference is to hit Burytia, grabbing an infantry from Wake Island in the process.

2.  You put an IC up in French Indochina on J2.  My generic recommendation is to get 5-6 transports and a second tank in Asia ASAP.  Think, a J2 15 IPC investment results in an additional 3 infantry in French Indochina at the placement (end) phase of J3.  A J2 14 IPC investment results in an additional 4 infantry at any number of places at the combat phase of J3, with the added bonus that many of those infantry are free, having been pulled off the islands.

True, getting 5-6 transports means either splitting the Jap fleet into three (for Japan, French Indochina, and the rogue fleet picking stuff up in the southeast Pacific), OR into two (for Japan, and the rogue fleet picking stuff in the southeast Pacific, in so doing damaging the logistics of an attack into India).  But free infantry is like buttsecks.  :-D

3.  It seems like a waste to have more transports around than Japan can pump out.  But I say it is NOT a waste.  You use 4 transports at capacity for Japan, and 1-2 transports to ferry infantry from the islands; they’re all filled to capacity near-constantly.  After the islands are emptied, Japan can use those 1-2 extra transports to dump units into Africa.  (Usually Germany grabs Africa, the Allies get it back - but if Japan’s placed well, Japan claims Africa soon after).  The Allies can’t protect the entire African coast without a heavy investment, because of the gigantic Japanese air force.  They can protect parts of Africa, and retain control of Africa by trading territory with Japan, but the Allies will STILL need a prohibitive number of units that can NOT be directed towards the Norway/Karelia front.  It’s a logistic nightmare to get units from Japan to the African coast, but you only need one transport to threaten the entire African east coast.

@dustwhit:

I’ve read through the threads on the Spring42 board twice now, and I’m suprised at the little attention Japan seems to get with starting strategies compared to the other countries.

I’ve been playing with the idea of an aggresive J build - 3 trans/3 inf: basically the most ground units that J could get on the mainland after 2 turns. The idea is to not waste money on destroyers, if possible/early on, by using the sz37 and conglomerated force on sz 52 as defense against the 2 Allied subs. I’d like your feedback. Here goes my thoughts:

Prerequisites round 1:

1. No UK bomber to Nov
2. UK does not attack FIC or Borneo, but recaptures Anglo Egypt - sends Car to Sz59. (I don’t see why an attack on Born or FIC prevents a no destroyer build, but for the sake of illustrating combat/non-combat moves, I’ll keep with this scenario)
   *) Presuming that tranny at sz40 attacks New Gui, otherwise I don’t think it matters.

J1:
Build:  3 trans, 3 Inf
Combat:
– sz34 attacked with carrier and battleship [98.1% Attacker]
– China attacked with 4 inf (3 Kwa, 1 Man) and 2 fighters (FIC and Man) [95.1% Attacker]
– Sz59 attacked with fighter (sz37) and bomber (from Japan) [98.1% Attacker]
– Sz47 attacked with fighter (sz37) - otherwise, if New Gui not attacked, attack sz59 and use the bomber at Chi.
– Sz52 attacked with 2 fighters (Jap and Caroline), carrier, sub, and battleship.[99.7% Attacker with 5 IPC lost if sub stays – I presume it would submerge though and go to sz58 later]

Non-Combat:
– Trans in Sz 60 to 61 and unload 2 inf to Man.
– 2 Fighters to Man, 1 fighter to FIC, 1 fighter to sz34 on the carrier, otherwise land in FIC, 2 fighters stay in Sz 52
– place transports in sz6

Interesting post, good food for thought.  Agreed that it isn’t set it stone that Japan must buy a dd J1.  I’ve gotten in the habit of it because I want to clear the sea lanes and control space.  Besides there’s no way of knowing how many subs US will drop USA1 so I want to go ahead and get a dd out there.  Having the dd there to either kill the subs or force them to retreat does not increase my ipcs by itself.  However, increasing the naval spaces in my control should lead to more ipcs later on.  Given the choice, I’d rather not keep my navy clumped in 2 groups–I want to expand and conquer the islands and Africa as quickly as possible and then turn my attention to Russia.

The other problem with this approach is assuming no bomber in Sink or Nov.  But the UK bmb should always be there, unless it was needed in Egy or to attack the Med fleet.  If the bmb is there, then all bets are off–you’ve got to leave some navy or buy some navy to protect your builds.

If there is no bomber, your approach seems reasonable.  Although occasionally the Allied counter on 52 will hit the 25% and destroy your fleet, most of the time that attack on 52 should go badly for the Allies.

@Bunnies:

It’s a logistic nightmare to get units from Japan to the African coast, but you only need one transport to threaten the entire African east coast.

One of the key moves on J1 is to load the sole Japanese transport with 1 inf + 1 arm to SZ36 and offload them on Indochina. Japan now threatens India/Africa/Australia. The problem is if the UK player has moved the sub to SZ47.