Beating J1

@ShadowHAwk So let’s say someone does the slightly revised Cow J1 attack and has 2 DDs and 3 transports in SZ6 that are also protected by 3 fighters. What would be your response on USA1?

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17005/the-japan-playbook/2

@ShadowHAwk I certainly would attack on US1 if Japan leaves SZ6 with three transports and no destroyers. All you need is a single sub, right?

In the situation where only one Japanese destroyer is present, it would be an attractive attack if you think your chance of winning the game is only <20% and need to rely on lucky dice to have a better chance of rebalancing the game. A fortuitous victory could be equivalent to a +40 shift towards the Allies as so much of the strategy changes for Japan.

Perhaps this is the situation for an OOB match played by email against an opponent of equal or superior skill.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Beating J1:

@ShadowHAwk So let’s say someone does the slightly revised Cow J1 attack and has 2 DDs and 3 transports in SZ6 that are also protected by 3 fighters. What would be your response on USA1?

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17005/the-japan-playbook/2

I would certainly not make that attack. It is a mere 28% chance of success and that does not take into account Kamikazes so it is more likely less than 10%.

Having said that to @Arthur-Bomber-Harris point there is a threshold that a lesser Player would happily make that attack even at under 50% odds. Since losing those three transports is a disaster for Japan and, while maybe not a game losing move, would dramatically attribute to losing the game a lesser Player certainly would probably take odds all the way down to 33% for the reward vs risk comparison.

I ran the full odds assuming 5 Kamikaze attacks used in the defense:
1 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 47% chance of USA victory
1 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 20% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 14% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 4% chance of USA victory

If I were playing against an equally experience Axis opponent in a no-bid OOB game, I would accept the 20% chance of a victory. In a game with a bid to balance the start, I would want the 47% chance to win.

Game theory optimized (GTO) play becomes an important topic to discuss now. You want your opponent to play more conservatively because he knows that you will take calculated risks if it gives you a higher probability of winning. If the opponent fears the SZ6 attack, they will leave the 2DD + 3Fighters behind in defense. This gives a significant advantage to the Allies even if you don’t attack. If you play overly conservative as Allies, Japan can be more aggressive with his forces and gain more momentum towards India.

@ShadowHAwk in the cases where the Axis scores 2 kamikaze hits to take out the American destroyer and cruiser (50% chance), the most likely outcome is that the Japanese take minimal damage and have a +35 PU swing from the combat. The benefits magnify over the next few turns as Japan might not need a sacrificial destroyer to shipblock SZ6 movement, and might be able to threaten the USA fleet if they want to move adjacent to Queensland. Germany can go wild with Dark Skies since the United States cannot put enough spending into the Atlantic to protect their fleet and recover in the Pacific. It really will swing the early game significantly in the Axis’ favor to a point where a competent player should have a 95+% chance of winning in a no-bid OOB match.

The plus side for the Allies is massively advantageous if the dice favor them in the 14-20% USA1 SZ6 battle. Perhaps a big sub build will allow convoy raiding Japan early on since he is down a destroyer or two, and might not be able to build in SZ6 on J2 with the fleet threatening annihilation. Having only 2-3 Japanese destroyers to prevent convoy raids is going to be a huge problem. It will be equivalent to having a 60 PU bid for the Allies.

I think that the game would almost be at a point to call it decided at that point since there will be very few significant battles to catch back up over the next six or seven turns. This gets back into the discussion of how bad of a first turn outcome are you willing to continue playing through.

@ShadowHAwk said in Beating J1:

Though weird, with 2dd and 2 fighters your defensive power is a lot less yet you got a higher chance of winning as japan.

That is because the US sub is surviving and killing the Japan transports in the other circumstance. You have to modify the OOL to make sure a Jap DD survives till the end to be around to kill the US sub in case it is not taken as a casualty immediately. Winning the sea/air battle but having a US sub survive to kill the 3 transports is in essence a loss for the Axis.

Not sure how @Arthur-Bomber-Harris is accounting for the Kamikazes. TripleA does not take them into account. If it were me I would use all 6; 3 on each DD and CA. However using 5 we would go 3 on the Cruiser and 2 on the DD I assume. This definitely tests my math skills but let’s give it a try:
*70% the CA is hit
*30% the CA is missed
*55% the DD also is hit when the CA is hit therefore .70 x .55 = 38.5% both hit
*70%-38.5% means only the CA is hit 31.5% of the time
*55% the DD is hit when the CA is missed therefore .3 x .55 = 16.5% only the DD is hit
*100 - 38.5 - 31.5 - 16.5 = 13.5
Thus
*38.5% both CA and DD hit
*31.5% only the CA hit
*16.5% only the DD is hit
*13.5% neither units are hit

The same battles with OOL of = US DD, CA, 2 fighters, SS vs IJN with one DD always last AND taking into consideration the above percentages for Kamikaze results. For example run the battle without the DD and CA and weight it at 38.5% then again without the CA only at 31.5% and so on for all four possible results…
1 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 54.50% chance of USA victory
1 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 18.98% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 2 Jap. fighters: 33.3% chance of USA victory
2 Jap. DD + 3 Jap. fighters: 9.78% chance of USA victory

As you can see the Jap defense of 3 fighters and 1 DD, with the DD taken last, is a better defense than 2 DDs and 2 fighters with one of the DDs taken last. Which makes sense because it is 4 units defending at 14 instead of 4 units defending at 12. So in essence if you are willing to accept the risk of losing your transports less than 20% of the time you can go with 1 DD and 3 fighters.

I did find a mistake in my spreadsheet. Thanks for catching it. Note that we also have to look at the chance that the USA sub is left to destroy the transports after the lone Japanese destroyer is sunk. That is approximately 45% when Japan is defending with 1 DD and 3 Fighters.

I think that I am now a convert and would suggest an attack if Japan leaves only one ship in SZ6. If it has extra protection such as another Japanese destroyer or sub, the USA1 attack likely doesn’t make sense unless you are playing against a far superior opponent or Germany had a ridiculously good G1 opening.

No one’s mentioned Japan putting a DD blocker in sz16 on J1. That limits US to attacking with 2 fighters. Japan can defend with 3 planes or 2 planes and a DD.

@shadowhawk Good point. I never use J1 DOW, so haven’t studied it, but just thought that potentially having to use up almost all kamikaze on round 1 is unsatisfactory to me. Has to be a better alternative. Blocker in sz16 and build a DD in sz6?

@shadowhawk If the Japanese tt can’t prevent U.S. tt from moving into sz6, then the U.S. tt also doesn’t prevent Japanese tt from leaving sz6 during combat move. Only a warship would prevent loading.

@shadowhawk Rulebook Europe 1940 second edition p.34 under Unit Profile Transports says “for purposes of determining the status of a sea zone, submarines and transports are ignored.” Just like a warship can pass thru any sea zone containing only subs and tt’s.

One strategy I like is buying all strats with the US rds 1 and 2. By the end of rd 3, you have the entire US fleet plus 11 strats and 4 fg on Queensland. This makes it very difficult for the Japan player to position the IJN in a spot where it is not vulnerable. They will usually end up wasting a bunch of DDs as blockers, which is in the Allied players economic advantage. Even if you can’t reach the IJN with your fleet, but can with planes , a triple whammy of 11 strats followed up with attacks by UK and AZ units typically leaves the IJN in a very diminished state and allows you to move the US fleet into a better position once the blockers are cleared out.

And if the Japan player is very cagey or really focuses on protecting and/or bolstering his fleet, the strats can be quickly reallocated to Europe by flying to India, then wherever. Then you can balance out the US spend by buying more fleet in Pacific whilst using the strats to help increase the attack power of whatever US units you managed to get to Europe in rds 3-5 or so.

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

One strategy I like is buying all strats with the US rds 1 and 2. By the end of rd 3, you have the entire US fleet plus 11 strats and 4 fg on Queensland. This makes it very difficult for the Japan player to position the IJN in a spot where it is not vulnerable. They will usually end up wasting a bunch of DDs as blockers, which is in the Allied players economic advantage. Even if you can’t reach the IJN with your fleet, but can with planes , a triple whammy of 11 strats followed up with attacks by UK and AZ units typically leaves the IJN in a very diminished state and allows you to move the US fleet into a better position once the blockers are cleared out.

And if the Japan player is very cagey or really focuses on protecting and/or bolstering his fleet, the strats can be quickly reallocated to Europe by flying to India, then wherever. Then you can balance out the US spend by buying more fleet in Pacific whilst using the strats to help increase the attack power of whatever US units you managed to get to Europe in rds 3-5 or so.

Not sure how that strategy would work. 3 bombers cost $36 have an OFP of 12 with three units. A carrier and 2 fighters also costs $36 and has a DFP of 10 with 4 units. Assuming the Japanese Player always puts their fleet where any planes have a landing area the chances of winning with the bombers is just 25%, 14% draw, and 61% loss. That means the US Player cannot reasonably gain an advantage on the IJN. Yet the IJN building carriers and fighters will have overwhelming superiority of the pretty naked US fleet so the IJN will own the Pacific. What am I missing?

I miss how this strategy works also as Japan can just build aircraft carriers and already has enough fighters to fill the decks. Three more flattops would be sufficient to protect the IJN fleet and also project enough power that the Allies cannot park their fleet stack in Queensland in the mid-game without even further investment into more Pacific-side spending.

Perhaps the bomber plan works well in face-to-face matches where people don’t have as much time to plan and don’t use battle calculators. This is often the source of advice discrepancies as the live players have a very different experience playing G40 than those who do PBEM or forum matches.

@andrewaagamer

If it’s a J1 attack then the US will already have the factory upgrades in rd1. So 4 bombers rd1, 6 bombers rd 2. As for the other planes, I fly all the planes the US starts with (assuming PHI is dead) to Hawaii. 4 can land on Hawaii, 2 on the carrier, then all down to Queensland next turn.

So if it’s only strats that can attack, and we assume the entire original IJN is in one sea zone minus 2 DDs assumed to be used for blocking, you’re looking at all 5 capital ships damaged, both DDs dead, and planes having to land on land. Then between UK and AZ you’ve got another 2 DDs, 2 CAs, and 6 planes to attack the wounded IJN, before even adding in any purchases. IJN may end up with a few ships left, but they will have to backtrack to a naval base to repair and join with newly purchased ships to create a fleet stronger than what the US has.

Also, if the IJN is parked off Malaya, the Allies need to hold only 1 territory bordering SZ 37 and the fg/tacs from Queensland can also join the attack.

Granted, a good Jap player probably won’t let this happen but the mere threat makes the entire corridor from Queensland/Malaya/DEI/India very treacherous to navigate. Typically the Japs will pull back to the Philippines to consolidate the fleet and have kamikaze’s available. But if they do that and therefore don’t kill India within the first 4-5 rounds, that’s already a big win for the allies. If the allies are able to take back any DEI before rd 4 that just provides even more landing spots for planes and less places the IJN can safely navigate. Hard to Japan to be a threat to win if you’ve cut them off from India and started to drain their income.

Obviously the United States can defeat Japan in the Pacific if they invest 100% of their resources into that theater. Something is wrong if an Allied player is incapable of winning or containing them despite 100+ production points being poured into the theater for the first few rounds. Honestly, I just turtle down as Japan and focus on keeping the money islands and China if the Allies have such a strong response in the Pacific.

I just don’t think that going all bombers is the most economical way to pursue a response as it has drained all of the income for the first two rounds, and still cannot provide adequate defense for the combined Allied fleet to stand toe-to-toe with the IJN. It won’t allow landings on the islands or mainland Asia, and won’t enable convoy raids in high value sea zones.

@arthur-bomber-harris

IME only 2 rounds of US investment into the Pacific is pretty low. And to be clear, I’d be going 100% Europe after that for around 4 rounds straight. After that typically just some modest investment to make sure Hawaii is protected. I think Germany is much more of a threat to win the game than Japan, but Japan can be a major threat if they get some momentum going. Bombers, being the unit with the greatest movement, allow the Allies to stunt Japan’s progress more quickly than anything.

Without transports and ships to protect them, I don’t see how you dent Japan. You can never take Caroline islands like this and that is a hindrance. Maybe Japan doesn’t rush India but he does not need to. Can sit at phillipines all day as a new carrier and kwangsi figs augment steadily while he slowly gains in China and SE mainland Asia while blocking/trading DEI. More likely, you have to block Japan from sinking SZ54 as bombers do nothing defensively. But maybe i’m visualizing this all wrongly. Do you have an online game as an example or do you play exclusively face-to-face?

@colt45554

Between US, AZ, and UK you start with 4 TTs in the Pacific. I typically buy one with AZ once every few turns. You should be able to take back at least a couple $ islands if Japan is just turtling in the Philippines. Japan can take them back, but of course that also means they have to move TTs and probably something else to help attack if you leave units on the islands which means you can kill that stuff. Japan also has to use 2 blockers to prevent the fleet in SZ54 from participating in the attack, and typically they’ll have one in SZ16 as well. So they are going to be investing a ton of IPCs into ships in your scenario, resulting in fewer land units on the mainland. That gives India a chance to turtle and build up a huge stack of inf.

I play almost entirely online, I could probably dig up a saved game or if not just make a new one as an example.

Well we could spend ages discussing if that is a good Allied plan, or we could play a match Mika.