Japan Tactic to help hold off america

Japan would have some money turn 4, but the progress for an actual win, will be slow and agonizing with the strong anzac/india.  Eventually, Japan will be picked apart from all sides.

considering japan would not have nearly that many loaded transports on india, yea.

@elevenjerk:

SO what if less guys in india? � japan will not have the manpower to take it, and contesting yunnan/shan state robs japan of a landing spot for planes.

You don’t think 8 loaded transports, maybe 10 if everything went perfect, along with 8 planes (due to the 4 AC I would have) and 2 bombers wouldn’t be enough if UK took most of their guys to Yunnan?

If you sent all of that to India (especially all 4 carriers), than ANZAC will be able to take some DEI and the US will be virtually unopposed in the Pacific (they will have 2-3 carriers of their own).

Also-The UK and France have a DD each in the Indian ocean that can block any attempt on India for at least a turn.

Commenting on the Aleutian Islands tactic, I have seen it work before. It does depend on the playing style of your US/Allied player.
A little while back, our group was playing a game of Global 40. I was Germany and my buddy was Japan. He sent a transport with a destroyer and 2 infantry and took the Aleutians. The US player realized he would lose his NO and just like elevenjerk said, he sent 2 transports – 1 with 2 inf from Hawaii, 1 with inf/art from W US – along with a cruiser and destroyer to take out the Japanese destroyer and his fighter and tac along with the carrier from SZ 10 to take it back.
The Japanese destroyer hit the US destroyer so the end result was the US had it’s carrier, fighter, tac, cruiser and 2 transports way up there in SZ 8. Japan built some subs and sent 3 of them after the US ships. They killed the cruiser and the carrier although lucky rolls by the carrier meant that 2 subs were lost. However, now the US just lost it’s carrier, a cruiser, a destroyer and 2 transports with a fighter and a tac stranded in the Aleutians along with 2 infantry and an artillery. The US had to build a new carrier and 2 new transports to go up and get those men and artillery.
It was a seemingly minor inconvenience but it cost the US roughly 3 rounds that they could have been doing something more meaningful against Japan with those assets.
In this game, I think it allowed Japan more time to stomp China and deal with India and ANZAC fleets.

@knp7765:

Commenting on the Aleutian Islands tactic, I have seen it work before. It does depend on the playing style of your US/Allied player.
A little while back, our group was playing a game of Global 40. I was Germany and my buddy was Japan. He sent a transport with a destroyer and 2 infantry and took the Aleutians. The US player realized he would lose his NO and just like elevenjerk said, he sent 2 transports – 1 with 2 inf from Hawaii, 1 with inf/art from W US – along with a cruiser and destroyer to take out the Japanese destroyer and his fighter and tac along with the carrier from SZ 10 to take it back.
The Japanese destroyer hit the US destroyer so the end result was the US had it’s carrier, fighter, tac, cruiser and 2 transports way up there in SZ 8. Japan built some subs and sent 3 of them after the US ships. They killed the cruiser and the carrier although lucky rolls by the carrier meant that 2 subs were lost. However, now the US just lost it’s carrier, a cruiser, a destroyer and 2 transports with a fighter and a tac stranded in the Aleutians along with 2 infantry and an artillery. The US had to build a new carrier and 2 new transports to go up and get those men and artillery.
It was a seemingly minor inconvenience but it cost the US roughly 3 rounds that they could have been doing something more meaningful against Japan with those assets.
In this game, I think it allowed Japan more time to stomp China and deal with India and ANZAC fleets.

I don’t disagree that it can be a pain in the butt for the US, I just question the use of those forces by the Japanese when land troops are usually badly needed elsewhere.  Perhaps if the land war in Asia is already won?  As the US I don’t think I would take the Aleutians back if the Japanese could kill my fleet.

I get your point, but I am not sure how you can have a transport or two sitting at Japan and have a large Navy at the Philippines.  The US should be able to destroy your navy piecemeal if it is split up.  Usually after war with the US I cannot build any ships at Japan because my Navy is at Philippines and the US would just kill what I build.

ANZAC would happily trade transports for islands.

ANZAC threatening islands does force Japan into retaking them.  This in combination with India threatening SE Asia/Yunnan;  Russia threatening Manchuria/Korea; and the US threatening Japan and Carolines- create lots of places Japan needs to worry about, but may not be able to handle all at once- leaving weak points the Allies can exploit.

The US doesn’t have to go into the Japan SZ hard, but if its only a DD and 3 fighters to get through, they could send some forces in there- they have had 3 full turns to build up a Pacific fleet, so it should be quite large.  Plus doubtful that Japan is going to attack wake island so the Philippine fighter could be there to join in the battle.  Anything to knock down some Japanese air.

I would have to see your J4 in action, it just seems like Japan is in a marginally better position while the Allies are in a much better position, due to increased money/larger forces for India/ANZAC.

One thing that I would agree with though- a J4 can be deadly in combination with a G1 attack on Russia.  US has to wait 3 whole turns to be able to help the UK out.  Especially if Japan attacks Russia early- they can hit Russia in the pocketbook quickly.

@elevenjerk:

I am going to post a J4 strat soon.  When I feel like typing out a novel:)

Take a peek at that.  There will be tons of what ifs… but it does show how you can knock china down by the end of turn 3.

The allies can really dictate a lot of it as well.
If Russia makes themselves available turn 2 or 3 then you probably take them out.  If US leaves navy available to take after turn 1 then the whole thing changes.  If Anzac doesn’t protect at all then on turn 3 you can make them pay.  If India attacks in order to restore yunnan to the allies then japan has a bunch of available transports to take islands with no fear of the US for another turn or 2.

Look for the thread and you can rip it apart on that one:)

Not trying to rip you apart, just posing questions that you may not have thought about.  :evil:

Really like the Aluetian strat, given the right circumstaces.  As for your J4 strat, keep in mind that UK/Anzac will almost surely attack rnd 3 as there’s virtually no drawback.

I really feel like you should test this strategy on experienced players before you assume its viable

@ghr2:

I really feel like you should test this strategy on experienced players before you assume its viable

Agreed.

@elevenjerk:

Just because I use a strategy that you have never executed effectively or had executed on you effectively does not make it any less “viable”.  Im not on here questioning your skill level or the skill level of the people you play.

I never said your strategy isn’t viable, just that at first glance it seems sub-optimal.  It may very well turn out to work well.

There have been a lot of 1940 games played and the majority of players would not wait until J4 for attack, or if they do it is to keep the US out of the war because Germany is going all out on Russia turn 1.  But in that case they are not really going for victory in the Pacific, but rather victory in Europe.

I would have to see this in action combined with what you do in Europe.

elvenjerk -

I’m late to this discussion, but the essence of what you’re saying is “does a transport and a couple infantry from Japan to the Aleutians help to hold off the US in the Pacific”.

The answer is absolutely, unequivocally yes.

But it’s a qualified yes.

Here’s how I see it (I’ve done it and had it done to me): Japan’s job is simple - take DEI take China take India suck economy from Russia fend off US fend off Anzac maintain economy take away economy get victory cities  :-D

While in the pursuit of those tasks, I always glance over to see what the US has to bring against me on the next turn… what are they up to? If they have no transports in range, no carriers are in range with aircraft, and one of my other main agenda items doesn’t immediately need the troops, I’ll pull the trigger on the Aleutians.

I want to say - I’ve had it done to me. I purchased the requisite transport, infantry, artillery, and threw down a bomber to get it back. I figured the bomber was worth it and would be in play the rest of the game. Guess what? My marines couldn’t take it back, even with solid air support. It was an absolute thorn, and the economic exchange for Japan was more than worth it.

It can have another, more important effect: let’s say you’re in a tenuous transport war over the Phillipines/DEI with the Allies. Making the US turn around and spend a turn dealing with your stiletto jab could actually cost them the initiative in the Pacific. The ripple effects could be enormous.

So yes, it can work. I rarely do it, but I take a look over at the Aleutians every single turn.