Japan Basic Strategies, Concepts and Ideas

Has anyone ever had the UK send there destroyer to SZ 48 to block forcing Japan to choose between India and Australia?  Would it slow you down in the Pacific? Also, how likely would you be to strike the US carrier/ destroyer if they took position in SZ 46 or 53 assuming a large US naval purchase? Would you be more likely to attack them if they also landed there two bombers on the respective islands?

Has anyone ever had the UK send there destroyer to SZ 48 to block forcing Japan to choose between India and Australia?  Would it slow you down in the Pacific?

No, and i would not recommend it, as it would remove a threat to the 4 IPC islands from the area. and a destroyer is not exactly block for the japanese ambition for australia. Better to keep the transport out of combat range but make sure the japanese has to keep ships / aircraft in the area.

Also, how likely would you be to strike the US carrier/ destroyer if they took position in SZ 46 or 53 assuming a large US naval purchase? Would you be more likely to attack them if they also landed there two bombers on the respective islands?

Thats a more difficult question. First, from japanese view i like the american to build ships, as it takes up large amounts of IPCs and does not directly threaten the mainland or fleets, as they require time to utilize. It also frees up the german. On the other hand, if no measures are to be taken to deal with it, it will become a problem earlier or later. Therefore I suggest the following: If the american only builds a token force, attack it and free up your IPCs for a land campaign; if the american goes all out fleet, reinforce yours so that the american has to build another round. Then decide how to deal with it accordingly.

fast way to russia for japan is india

BUY:

1 bmb, 1 arm

CM:

sz57 4ftr to sz53 1BB
sz61 2ftr to sz35 1DD, 1TN
sz61 1BB, 1CA and sz51 1DD to sz50 1DD, 1TN

sz61 1TN(2inf) to sz49 take Borneo
sz51 1TN(2inf from Carolines) to sz38 take East Indies
sz51 1TN(1inf from Carolines) to sz48 take New Guinea

Kwangtung 1inf
-sz62 1TN(inf/arm from Japan) to sz61 assault
-1ftr Formosa

Burma 1inf
-sz61 1TN(inf/art) to sz37  assault
-3inf FIC

Suyian 1inf
-3inf, 1ftr Manchuria

Fukien 1inf

• 3inf Kiangsu, 1ftr Japan

NCM:

sz61 1CV, sz35 2ftr to sz37
sz57 2CV, sz53 4ftr to sz51
3ftr(Suyian, Fukien, Kwangtung) to FIC

IPC: 31+10  BUILD: 1bmb, 1arm Japan

Has anyone ever seriously considered ignoring china and india and SE Asia and directly going for America. WUS can be taken J# if America is not careful.
Yes its a high risk strategy… you do not gain IPCs quickly but you have a huge starting force advantage. this means a lightning raid on America can really press them

why ignore it when u can bash it without yout navy?

@alvn78:

Has anyone ever seriously considered ignoring china and india and SE Asia and directly going for America. WUS can be taken J# if America is not careful.
Yes its a high risk strategy… you do not gain IPCs quickly but you have a huge starting force advantage. this means a lightning raid on America can really press them

The problem with that is China can “re-take” Manchuria, Kiangsu, and Kwangtung which would really hurt Japan.

@a44bigdog:

[…]
I like to position the sea zone 57 carriers in 51.
[…]

Do you position that CV/fighters without additional naval units? Seems a bit to risky.

US can attack there with 3 fighters and bomber. Normally you lose only three fighters, but what if US get three hits at first round? Tricky question: Lose two fighters, one CV? Lose three fighters? You have to choose your losts before you know your hits. Lost three fighters may risky if you only get two hits. And if you lose the CV as third and an additional fighter later, you have lost 44 IPC and US lost only 42.

thats a very risky attack. (87% attacker looses all its unis) normally there would be

2CV 3ftr vs 3 ftr 1 bomb.

also the US will loose the carrier too next round…

if japan looses 2 fighters round 1, you can always put the CVs at okinawa

@atarihuana:

thats a very risky attack. (87% attacker looses all its unis) normally there would be
2CV 3ftr vs 3 ftr 1 bomb.

I know.
But if 3ftr 1bomb vs. 2CV 3ftr is 43% chance to lose one and 29% chance to lose two CV, if I interpret frood.net correctly. Economical benefit, as the US have more IPC than Japan and can replace that lost units easier.

Nevertheless - I have an unpleasant feeling to give my opponent the chance to attack a CV which have no naval support.

also the US will loose the carrier too next round…

Not necessarily. If US lose two ftr, the CV could move to sz 56 (pick up two new ftr there and meet with new naval units) or to the east coast via sz 20.

My Japan 41 first round is nearly identical to Jenifer’s except I take three of the fighters and the destroyer against the battleship and only one against the transport and destroyer in 56. I have been burned by the battleship before, and would rather keep my fighters around.  It is an extremely potent first move for Japan, allowing for a turn two take of Australia or Hawaii Depending on the Allies.  If Brits build IC in India it is yours on round three.

Leaving the allies the flying tigers would be a huge mistake in my opinion.

So far we have found no way for the allies to survive in the pacific after this (short of very bad rolls for j1).  Next week we experiment with the South Africa IC, But with a turn two East Indies IC build for Japan I am skeptical of it’s chances by round 4. It may put england in the position of hoping for improved factories (not the right chart for the Brits i think).

If anything this may be the greatest weakness of the move as it invites a kill Italy first response from the Allies, which sometimes works.

MY first build for Japan is either a Bomber and Scientist, or a Cruiser and Scientist.

Lately I have been withholding the Cruiser from the sea zone 50 battle and moving it in non-combat to sea zone 51. At the end of J1 I have 43 IPCs, at the end of J2 I normally have 55 IPCs so I could care less about losing a carrier or some fighters to the Americans. I have way more ships than them and after round 2 I am making substantially more money. 1 of the carriers would also be my first loss in combat, my fighters can land in the Carolines after combat and I have another carrier and can easily purchase more if I should desire them.

Also I have had the US do the attack on sea zone 51 without having the Cruiser present. It hurt the US way more than it hurt me. They lost units that they had to replace and I lost units that I did not HAVE to replace.

It seems that there are a lot of different thoughts out there, on how to play Japan…
For myself, Japan has always proven to be the most difficult country to play, even since 2nd Ed.

It’s not that Japan has difficulty to expand (Germany is far more threatened than Japan), it is just that I can’t seem to play an optimized game with Japan, as easily as I can with Germany or Italy.

Anyhow, what to do with a Japan, in the case that US goes 100% KGF?

Go all out on Russia - or try to disturb US through landings in Alaska?
How heavy should you land in ALA in that case?

I’m thinking that it might be better to go all out on Russia. But then again, I’m not exactly an expert Japan player…

I’ve been thinking on this and I think there are a few important things japan can/should do.

1. reinforce Italian Med fleet.  This is very important.

2. take IPCs from the allies.  This means taking away there NOs, take islands, take alaska, take africa, bomb the crap outta russia.

I dont think japan should try for an all out push so to speak anywhere, just keep eating up allied IPCs and reinforcing in the med/africa.  If you take egypt/trans-jordan Italy gets 5 IPCs, if allies are landing in africa there not in Europe.  If you can hold Alaska you can bomb the US.

alaska is a dead road imho, waste of resources. focus on india/ med its the fastes way to russia. fastes way to help italy (with fleet/ planes) if USA goes kgf japan must reach europe ASAP. forget silly alaska 2 ipc… its no threat at all

some thougts:

• Leaving Manchuria  empty; too inviting and 5 or more russians are hard to kill on J2

• The fighter in Egypt is the most important piece in turn 1.

• An IC build in Indochina on J1? (will try this next time)

• Japan stratgy is influenced by the actions of Germany on turn 1: egypt or not.

• Ignore Siberia and go for the Caucasus via China
  OR
  Ignore China, let them flourish! Prepare to lose 2 victory cities.  (They can not attack outside China ( just an idea))

Greetings
El Stef

This is in response to Perry’s question.

A basic outline of my Japanese play is on page 5. Basic summary ICs in Manchuria and Kiangsu. I use these to produce 5 tanks a turn that are dedicated to Russia. Japan produces it’s 4 units. 5 ARM for the mainland and 4 INF 4 ARM for Japan is 57 IPCs which is achieved around round 3. I like to dump the Japan units in Fukien as they can go through China towards Russia or South towards India. Around this time say round 3-5 I should probably capture India and in most games will put an IC there as well. My priorities for production are India, Manchuria, Kiangsu, and finally Japan with whatever shortage there is being less infantry produced as they take too long to reach Russia to be effective and are poor at attack anyway.

With the US completely ignoring Japan I have no need to invest in ships. Once the above conditions are met I can consolidate my Navy around Japan and buy whatever transports I need to set up a 4 X 4 invasion of Alaska supported by 6 fighters and a cruiser and Battleship bombardment every turn. The only thing this pulls away from Russia is the 4 ARM from Japan and Generally by this point it is not that big an issue anyway. When this occurs Japan is Generally trading Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Persia with the allies and making around 70 or so IPCs a turn. The US has NO choice but to stop sending units to Europe and fight Japan in Alaska. Yes they should defeat the Japanese every turn and liberate Alaska. However, with the above described attacking force they will not have enough in Alaska to keep Japan out. Depending on how things are going with Russia additional transports can be added to transport troops out of Manchuria giving the US and even bigger force to have to overcome every round.

After getting a few more AA50 games under my belt, I have come to the decision that the first turn IC must wait.  Japan REALLY needs to build 1 if not 2 destroyers on turn 1 to help nullify a US sub drop.

This makes my J1 build either 1 tr, 1 dd@15 save 2 or 2 dd@16 save 1.

I see no need for Japan to slow down its mainland production just because the US might buy some subs. So what if they do. It will take them a couple of turns to even be relevant to Japan. Japan will have more money on J2 to purchase destroyers if needed.

One other thing to keep in mind is you only need 6 trannies to drop 8 units a turn into alaska.  4 of them go back and forth from japan, but when they hit japan sea zone bridge to bury, then 2 trans bridge from there each round.  I am curious if there is a way to take hawawii, bury, and one other island off US on turn 1 so you can drop 8 units a round into alaska beginning turn 2 without completely loosing your econ advantage.