Japan counters to a West Russia stack

Don’t worry about the Americans. If they split up their IPC’s between Japan and Germany, the Allies will end up loosing the fight. The Brits, if aggressive, can normaly only attack one of both Axispowers. Even if they sink your tranny and your sub, there’s nothing to be affraid of. You can destroy a lot with few efforts when the UK-fleet strikes at the Japanese in turn one, using your fighters.
The only problem is that if and when the UK strikes at the Japanese in UK1, you can probably expect a KJF. Then it’s up to the Germans to Panzer their way to Moscow.
If UK strikes the Japs on UK1, but then divert their offensive actions towards Germany, you shouldn’t have any trouble wiping them out of the Pacific and start nibbling on their income. Especially if USA splits its income between Germany and Japan.
Anyway, that’s what I’ve experienced in the games that I’ve played. An Allied player who tries to assault both Germany and Japans digs his own grave…

@Crazy:

:-o
71Boomer,
  Was that a cat call?
Did you just cat call Jennifer?
Careful my friend, there are some big dogs on here that might start barking at you for that.
Not that Jennifer can’t handle you all by herself, but some guys love to jump in to fight for the ladies anyway. :wink:
I smite you for the “Cat Call”!  :wink:
It was funny though  :-)

. . . smites Crazy Ivan for chauvinism and for that whole vague “big dog” reference.

Feel the wrath of Bunny P!

You know, I have to admit.  I’ve been cooling it a lot with Japan lately.  Racing out to take over the world looks great on paper, but you have no security on your lines of supply.

I’m also growing to like the Sinkiang or even Novosibirsk Industrial Complex with Japan.  Especially if Germany is getting hammered. (Since it helps you rebuild after an assault on Moscow.)

The idea being, Moscow falls to Japan, Berlin falls to America on the same round.  If Germany owns Caucasus, the allies would be silly to liberate it.  That means Japan could really use the extra 2 units right there in the red zone, and when they DO get Caucasus (if ever) it only helps them more.

Remember, you can always shut down your factories in the rear if they are no longer needed.  No rule that says you MUST use all your factories to their full output capacity, eh?

Generally speaking, if allies let G have afr then in most cases axis win.

The UK sub and trans in Australia have no place in my overall strat, so might as well use it to weaken Jap a little bit.
The Borneo attack is a tricky one, 4 ipc is very tempting, and leaving the AC in Philli to block for Jap retake on J1.
Afr is much more important so one has to look at the map, if G didn’t attack Anglo then Afr is secure, but in most
cases allies should land in Afr with both US+UK. rnd 1.
Sometimes, to take 2 inf from Aus+NZ and move the trans to Afr can be a smart move.
I won’t do this if the sub attack went wrong…

As Jap I don’t care if UK got NG, I wanna kill those trans, but the 1 ipc is no big deal.
Landing the India ftr on the US AC is not a good move imo. I use it in Afr, or with DD in sz59, sometimes I land
that ftr in Bury. The India ftr can land in Cauc together with UK bmr, and 2 ftr from london, (UK1 to WRU) might do a 4 air units
attack to the G med fleet in UK2/UK3, before axis merge their fleets, this is something I usually hate as allies.
If all 3 ftrs land in WRU then they’re set for a baltic wipeout UK2, presuming G didn’t buy any naval units in sz5.  :wink:

To have the US trade Italy and UK trading WE means birdy for allies  :-)

Normally I would go for transports.
That would be buy two on J1 (fleet total is 3 or 4 now) and on J2 buy one or two more.  Coordinate this with ground unit builds in Japan to fill all the transports and do the infantry push to Moscow.

In the current game, the Allied/UK player (RJ), placed his bomber within reach of Japanese home waters (Novo) and moved his Australian submarine up within reach also (Coral Sea).  This put any unprotected transport build in home waters at risk.  The added cost of either diverting fleet assets to cover them or building cover and still over building to deal with losses actually made me move toward factories on the mainland. Add in that he moved most of his India forces to Egypt and skipped on the UK1 DD vs Trans option.

I built two, one in FIC and one in Manchuria.  Sure, they will never out build the home islands but now my infantry push into Russia is independent of any transport issues.  For 30 IPC I have the equivalent of three transports that won’t sink.  I would have spent 24 for those same three transports plus a DD to protect them (12 more) then probably another transport to replace loses (8 more).  So it was two factories at 30 IPC or 4 Transports and a DD at 36 IPC.  The factories are at least one turn closer to the front so discount a turn of Infantry in the pipeline (6X3=18IPC) and now I have 30 IPC for factories vs 54 IPC for transports, DD, and infantry to fill the pipeline.  I will have to build AA guns for the factories to keep the SBR from becoming annoying but they will also be able to move up with the front lines making my kill stacks harder to hit.

As an additional bonus, I can still add transports to the fleet in later turns and if they are not moving gear to the mainland they are now available to support fleet operations / threaten Alaska/Austrialia/Africa.  This decision meant I could send the homeland transport to Hawaii with the fleet for a low odds invasion of Hawaii and the Kwangtung transport is busy supplementing the mainland, ferrying Inf from the islands, and joining the fleet facing India.

I won’t claim these are perfect moves but faced with an opponent who was looking to disrupt the J1 transport build, it was not a bad counter.  At least, so far…

Yea, I’ve used an Egyptian one the same way once.  Though, what really kept me from an invasion wasn’t the IC or your silly Submarines, which did nothing but die.  It was lack of strength to follow up the invasion.

@Caleb3285:

A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.

sorry to interrupt this thread with a noob question, but I thought subs could only attack other sea vessels, are you saying that it gets a counterattack against an attacking fighter?

That was “counterattack”.  It’s probably in reference to USSR using its fighters against German navy on USSR1 before Germany can go, then having to land one of those fighters in Karelia.  Germany can crush Karelia on its first turn regardless of what the Allies do.  So the USSR doesn’t lose the fighter on the USSR turn; USSR loses the fighter on the German turn when the Germans take the terrritory that the USSR fighter landed in.

Yep… I had that argument with Tri in one of our earlier games…  I was using the box rules which implied somethign else, he was using LHTR, which are explicit.