Posts made by Spendo02

@Marshmallow:

@ShadowHAwk:

Well problem is that after that i just non-combat my whole fleet in there. Ofcourse if your fleet is out of position.
And that would be a guaranteed 11 IPC loss due to convoys.
Kamikazes are useless again because your the attacker not me.

While the loss of 11 IPCs for Japan is nasty, I have at times abandoned sea zone six to go and kill India and had it work out very well. Sea zone 6 is important, but losing control of it doesn’t necessarily end Japan’s game.

Marsh

To me, its a simple money game.  It may lose 11 IPC / round in Convoy - but how many IPC will it cost me to defend it?  Much much more.  Even three full turns of convoy is only 33 IPC.

I’m not defending SZ6 with 33 IPC of units against a determined US opponent.  I’m probably not defending it for anything less than 70 IPC worth of invested units considering what the USN starts with in the Pacific.  And really, to keep the US away I’ll probably need upwards of 100 IPC of value to deter the US from harassing SZ6 if it REALLY wants to convoy there.

I’ll happily project force in other places and accept the cost of doing business will be 11 IPC / turn of potential convoy fully knowing that when KIF concludes I can swing back to SZ6 or threaten it rather quickly.

I’ve found the USN is almost always better served to get into the action around the DEI than sit and convoy Japan for 11 IPC with much of its fleet.

And, if the USN just wants to send SS there, an IJN DD with a few FTR really requires more than just SS to take control of SZ6 and enforce an effective convoy for all 11 IPC.

I’ve purchased 10 SS at once with Germany before, but only after Russia had fallen and the Allies were relatively weak on Navy in the Atlantic.

The intent was to suicide them against the fleet to sink or cripple most if not all of their warships.  Even the appearance of that was enough to delay them risking their still maneuvering fleets in Europe for a turn which bought me time to swing to the Middle East while making additional defensive purchases for Europe.

I ended up needing a 1-2 punch from the Italian Navy (who grew to collecting 35+ IPC at one point), but the entire Allied Fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic and my opponent resigned.

@taamvan:

Boy do you have it right.  We used to think 3 powers against UK or US was gamey, but 3 powers against USSR is just broken, which is why absent altering Russia (and the bid never seems to go to Russia based on the fact they cannot attack! imo) it would be hard to fix the G40 scenario.

But, make Russia stronger and it will either be too tough for Germany and Italy alone or too weak for all 3 axis.

The real problem is two fold:

1. Allied income and potential production is lacking in Europe.
2. The cost to transport units across an ocean is astronomical in comparison to the cost of the Axis massing units with range / movement to reach Moscow.

That means we can:
1. Bump Allied Income in Europe, or
2. Increase Allied production in Europe, or
3. Decrease the expense to transport ground units across the Atlantic, or
4. Change the units the Axis employs to slow them down, or
5. Change the map in Russia to buy the Allies more turns before Moscow is on the brink of collapse.

I’d argue the Allied bid should be the option to place 1 TT per turn (counts towards production limits) per starting IC in Europe.

@SubmersedElk:

Mechs may be more useful to the Axis but it’s not exclusive by any means. Russia can make very good use of mechs if it gets the opportunity, and UK is often spamming as many as it can produce from its non-London ICs.

One could say the same for tanks as well, more useful to Axis than to the Allies. And other types of units have the reverse situation - if you decreased the cost of transports or carriers or fighters, the Allies would benefit far far more than Axis.

It’s just the nature of the board - Axis need to traverse land to achieve their objectives, Allies need to traverse water.

Suppose you halved the cost of Allied TT to 3 or 4 IPC.  Would that change the Allies to be more competitive where we wouldn’t need a bid?

J1 DOW enables you to gobble up much of the DEI on J2.  One DEI is typically worth 3 or 4 territories in China or Russia.  The income adds up very quickly although you turn on the US war economy by doing so.  You also have a national objective for controlling all the DEI, making the control of all of them plus the NO worth something like 20+ IPC per turn?

My J1 typically includes taking the Philippines followed by J2 to take Borneo and two of the DEI (Celebes and maybe Java?).  Taking up to those 4 islands turns the Japanese economy on rather quickly, but you have to figure out a plan to control China on the mainland as well.  Typically this includes the purchase of a minor industrial complex (or three!) in the first few turns and dedicating income to them producing units until China becomes overwhelmed.

The advantage of never DOW with Japan is that you can force China to submit and march across Russia without US interference early in the game.  In effect you transfer much of the Japanese starting warpower (in form of planes mostly) from the Pacific Theater to the European Theater.  These can be used to strategic bomb moscow earlier than anticipated, turning off (or down) the production of units Moscow counted on producing to defend with.  When the UK player realizes this, they may begin production to get units into Moscow through the Middle East, so be prepared to see China re-opened by the UK in the mid to late game.

Russia has a hard enough time dealing with Germany and Italy, that if Japan is chipping away at income from the Pacific side and eventually gets involved in the siege of Moscow, the Russians are generally going to fall.  It also enables the Italians to consider making a play to take Egypt before the Allies can reclaim it to secure an Axis win in Europe.  Later on, the abundance of aircraft from Japan can swing through in a 1-2 punch with the Germans to sink any fleets the Allies wanted to use to land in Europe.

All Japan has to do is defend Tokyo in this type of strategy.  To me, it is a bit "gamey;’ But I’ve employed it before and won convincingly.

For the Germans, there are a few options out there - but the principal strategy is to sink the UK fleet on G1 and take Paris, followed by massive production of units in subsequent turns to march to Moscow.  A solid G1 purchase can sometimes be some navy to keep the UK honest on its purchase (you can theoretically take London early in the game, but its expensive and there are Russians not far from Berlin if you do!).  This naval purchase at least feigns that threat and in the long run can delay allied landings on Europe because they cannot simply put up a token defense for all the TT they’ve purchased.

A good rule of thumb as the Germans is to not get “greedy” and split up its units but instead make a massive stack the Russians have to respect and withdraw from strategically.  The Russians can launch counter attacks on smaller German stacks which cost the Germans time to wait for reinforcement units if they get too thin.  It’s better to risk little of your starting units unless it creates such a gap in the Russian lines that it is worth the losses.  As an example, is it really worth that 1 IPC territory to send half your stack there so you can lose 6-8 units defending it so far away from your major production locations?  Typically that answer is no, even if you lost 6 INF, you’d need to hold the territory for 18 turns just to recoup the investment.

There are some pretty simple strategies for the German production - all revolve around mass production of a single type of unit.  Mech and Bombers are two that are used now - and you can never really go wrong with ARM either.  My G2 Purchase is almost always as many ARM as I can get on the board.  All subsequent purchases are MEC to catch up and reinforce my stack as it marches towards Moscow and then finally as I stage to sack Moscow, bomber purchases out of Ukraine and the northern Russian IC for effect and final punching power.  I want to say my odds (without allied planes there is generally in the (85-90% chance to win the attack on Moscow around G6/G7).

The Italians can get involved (due to timing in the turn) to open up a gap for the Germans to blitz through.  We call this a can-opener.  In short the Italians send ARM (and/or MEC) towards Russia and attack a territory the Russians are trying to block with only a few units (Italians send their bomber(s) for punching power).  This enables the Germans to not only step forward and now land their planes on their big stack, but in some cases, the Germans can blitz ARM through or move MEC in a large stack two spaces into a place the Russians cannot attack and expect to do well in.  This turns the Russian strategy to full retreat to Moscow or face losing the capitol earlier than anticipated and with much less losses for the Axis if they do not retreat.

As two of the three Axis players go in the first three turns of the round - the Axis are the ones who dictate the tempo of war; not the Allies.  Its difficult to feign war if you have the option and timing to do it and choose not to.  Bluffing a DOW is hard to believe when your opponent has the lead and chose to play passive.  Your best option for a feigned DOW as Japan is to stage your fleet off of Tokyo or in the Caroline Islands.  Both give you options and threat to multiple strategic locations (Philippines, Hawaii, ANZAC in general).  I don’t think it can be reiterated enough, as the Axis your job in 95% of games is to go on the offensive as soon as absolutely possible.  You have the military advantage, so you should press that advantage and continue to do so until you win or no longer have it (this can happen for the Germans where waiting outside Moscow for a few turns can change the odds dramatically in their favor).

To fix Japan’s income in a delay, your only real option is to go after Russia and the gains there are small.  You’re already at war with China and play a back and forth for the Burma road in the early game.  Japan’s not focused on Income as much when its marching towards Moscow anyways.  It’s defending Tokyo and turning the Russians off.

Mistakes not to make in China are the following: 
1. Ensure the Chinese do not get access to ART by denying the Burma road.  The rest falls into place if they cannot go on the offensive except in trying to reclaim the Burma road.
2. Abuse the power of your size-able starting air force.  Sending 2 bombers on top of 2 INF could secure your flank and corner the Chinese.  You may not need those bombers when you’re sending 5 FTR and 5 TAC to deny Burma anyways.
3. Establish a supply line for reinforcements into China.  I’ve found minor complexes to be more cost efficient than additional TT that need to be escorted and defended from Allied planes or ships.  As these locations are in coastal China, they can later produce 1 INF, 1 ART and 1 TT to start shuttling units across the Pacific in the future once China has bowed down.
4. Be prepared to exchange Japanese Aircraft to achieve your goals.  Taking territory could be more valuable (in time) than trying to replace those 2 INF three turns from a complex.
5. Abuse the speed of MEC.  Their two space movement gets them into lots of fights very fast and makes them effective fodder for overpowering aircraft attacking with them.

In order for Japan, you want to:
1. Deny the Burma Road
2. Secure DEI for Income (And deny it to the Allies).
3. Siege / turn off Calcutta’s production for UK India.
4. Take Sydney or Hawaii afterwards.

Number 4 is the hardest to project because of all of the variables at play, but the first 3 are fairly straight forward from a scripted / strategic planning perspective.

In order for Germany, you want to:
1. Sink the UK fleets with minimal losses
2a. Ensure you take Paris
2b. Help Italy expand economically if you can (FTR in Rome to Scramble for example).
3. Drive towards Moscow without being greedy
4. Threaten early Allied landings by projecting power via either bombers or a G1 Naval purchase.

Keep reading these forums.
Keep practicing, refining your moves.
Pick one side and play it for a while.
Play lots of different opponents.

@Kreuzfeld:

I might rater make mechs into 1/1/2 with a cost of 3 IPC per unit

Alone MEC should be 1/1/2
Paired with ART they are 2/1/2
Paired with ARM they are 1/2/2

This makes them valuable as a fast unit to the front lines so you’re paying 4 IPC for the versatility of the unit in speed and pairing options.  However, their base numbers alone cannot easily overwhelm your enemy with them unless you support them.

@Stalingradski:

Thoughts on Russia - deviating somewhat from the all Armor build (but liking the aggressiveness!) - against a solid Axis player, you know one of two outcomes is coming for Mother Russia:

• Stand and die, forcing Germany to use up a great deal of expensive material.
• Move off Moscow, forcing Germany to chase you until you can join with other allies and make a stand.

Either way the capital will fall, so if you know it, why not plan for it? I like the idea of a modified version - more Artillery and Infantry, but still making mobile purchases for the long game - some Mech and some Armor. Perhaps ending around 12 and 12?

You can still have a stack of 50 + mixed units (infantry/artillery/AA) to fall back to the middle east, while a joyous band of roving Mech, Armor, and Air power roam the countryside, attacking much smaller groups of Japanese units in China for example, or making their way to reinforce/retake India, whatever.

I’ve done it in a few games - much more fun for Russia. I’m not saying it means victory, just way more fun and flexibility - a wild card to be used opportunistically  :evil:

If your plan is a mobile evacuation, it doesn’t really make sense to purchase ART unless you intend to smash it against the German stack WITH the ARM.

If anything, you may be better served purchasing 3 ARM for every MEC so that you can race around in Asia like you suggest.

Japan sure would be pissed with 20+ ARM and 10 MEC roving around in China turning all Japan’s gains on its head in a matter of two or three rounds while enabling the Chinese to reinforce you.

Of course, the Germans can simply DOW on China and chase you around themselves which may end up being the equivalent of losing 2/3 to 3/4 of its units trying to take a fully defending Moscow anyways.

But, you’re right.  At least it keeps things interesting for the Russians.  Unless, of course, you are content buying max INF and drinking a ton of beer waiting to roll a whole bunch of dice in a few hours.

Simon, I agree with you as the Germans just taking everything of value and leaving Moscow alone.

I was suggesting that its pretty boring playing Red Turtle.  At least this way you can have some fun and go out swinging instead of huddling in buildings hoping the TAC and SB don’t hit the one you’re in while the Panzers roll through the streets.

Of course, a few artillery may be valuable to beef up the INF you start with.  I don’t doubt you could optimize better than all ARM.

However, the ARM could dance away from sloppy German play (or GASP an allied can-opener of their own) and create their own issues if they get through the German lines because now the Germans have to spend to address (hopefully) Allied landings and the Russians racing to Berlin.

Side note:

What happens if your capital is lost and you sack someone else’s?  Do you collect their IPC but are unable to spend it until liberated or does it all just go into the bank?

Be interesting to take a gambit move to trade Moscow and at the last moment race away from the Germans for a 1, 2, 3 punch of Russia, US and then UK to liberate Europe.

@simon33:

You must have misread what I wrote - I’m expecting USSR to evacuate Amur R1. If they don’t, they can certainly be taken down. My point is that with the turn order, USSR moves first and can and should evacuate most of their units out, unless they’re intentionally inviting an attack.

I did.  Apologies!

@simon33:

J1 DOW can’t clear out units in Amur unless USSR has passed on the opportunity to evacuate.

As for all air units into FIC, that does expose Kwangtung to a mobile assault. China can clear out a blocker. Obviously this means that the kitchen sink has been thrown at Yunnan. I guess you’d be inclined to change up in that event.

I’d suggest reconsidering your position on Amur.  It can surely be taken regardless if it was stacked upon, left alone or evacuated (last one’s easy).  The only question is, at what expense?

There are at least 16 ground units that can reach Amur on J1, all but 3 aircraft can reach it, and you can throw in a few bombards as well for good measure.

You give up a lot of positioning and posturing for doing this and you surely don’t need all of this to take Amur, but if Japan’s strategy is to clear out those units and start advancing on Russia, clearly Amur is the beginning of that strategy and Russia cannot do anything about it except evacuate and swing around with the Mongolians later or evacuate them as well.

I highly suggest you reconsider talking in authoritative certainties.  Just because it may not be a preferred move does not make it impossible to do.

I always thought a good way to incorporate some randomness to use the research was to have every nation roll once every round for a potential breakthrough and then you get to choose the tech.  Once chosen, the tech was exclusive to that nation (like a patent).

This way, some games you’d benefit from an early tech as you could build a strategy around it.

Others, the tech would be too late to make a difference.

Still in others, it could change the game entirely.  A good example would be Moscow suddenly being able to pair 2 INF with an ART and turning it’s turtled stack into a very offensive one and the Germans get caught with their pants down.

Some games, nothing happens at all.

Odds are, with so many nations and multiple rounds, you’d see some impact with research tech each game.

@simon33:

In our games a standard move is for Germany to sit in SZ109 and convoy 8 production off London/Scotland. This lasts until the US can come in with a big enough force to either scare off the Kreigsmarine or damage it sufficiently that the brits can take it down. Does this not happen in other people’s games? Perhaps players feel it is a bad investment for the Brits or something.

It depends on the situation and terrain.  Sometimes its worth moving out of port, others, it is not.

Much depends on what kind of threat the UK can generate on UK2 against the fleet - which could be enough to send it limping back to port depending on what happens on UK1, what it’s purchases were, and if it elected to scramble or not on G1.

@simon33:

Point of order: US can build 20 units per turn for the Atlantic. Central and Eastern USA. Only makes a difference for air units to build in Eastern USA.

Sounds to me like Dark Skies is a strategy to keep USA and UK out of Europe when Germany is already winning.

Yup, projecting power - even if its mutually assured destruction, really makes the Allies delay an arrival in Europe.

I’ve had some success including not only SB, but also some SS to threaten the SZ off of Gib which further forces the Allies to invest in DD which is generally something they’d prefer not to have to purchase to secure their fleets in the Atlantic.

Just buy ARM with Russia every turn and place them on Moscow.  Full retreat with starting units.

Don’t sacrifice anything to defend territory

Gives you something like 26 INF and 30+ ARM by the 6th turn.  Assuming a G3 DOW, that means the absolute earliest the Germans could arrive would be to attack on G6 - and they won’t blitz ARM ahead when you’re stack of ARM is just as large.

The moment the Germans step next to Moscow, send everything at them.

Either you win or you get diced.

No Allied intervention required and more entertaining than sitting back and waiting.

Bids aren’t going to fix the logistical nightmare it is for the US to project force in both theaters.

That is really the underlying problem as it takes nearly 6 full turns of US income to simply establish a consistent threat against Europe (10 units per round) - and that is at Normandy assuming the UK can defend the SZ there.

By this time, the Germans have nearly encircled Moscow and can afford to spend to repel Allied landings.

This does nothing to consider Italy or Japan’s influence.  And in Japan’s case, it can win the game entirely on it’s own in 6 turns if the US doesn’t spend anything in the Pacific.

So… Moscow falls because the Allies cannot land and hold Normandy in time to open a second front.  Taking Paris is only a token addition of units that does nothing to put the Germans on their heels - and in some cases makes it worse for the US because it can no longer produce units in Europe now.

Japan can run rampant without any US interference.  As suggested, Japan could entirely ignore the Pacific and speed up the fall of Moscow.  Or, it could strangle Calcutta, build an economy that rivals the US and then sack Sydney.

Really, the weakest link is that the US cannot project force in two theaters at the same time that requires the Axis to respect their presence.  This enables the Axis to full on ignore the US and concentrate on weaker links and it will just “Deal with the US later.”

Which is why we see operation dark skies and KIF strategies that abuse airpower and fast moving units.

@taamvan:

Its not that its overpowered, its not realistic and it goes against the separation of jobs–transports transport and the rest of the units fight.

It also affects the different nations differently; some use warships and some don’t.    If a change doesn’t address a problem, it causes new ones.

If we did allow the warships to carry 1 infantry, I don’t see it as particularly useful even if we assumed that it did address some problem.   If you forward stage the units, that’s ok for defense but as you said, they can’t land during combat.   In that case, the infantry would still need a transport to arrive at some future point in order to project power.

The Allied problem in Europe is not so much successfully landing on Normandy, but holding it.

Enabling the Allies to move additional units as reinforcements via NCM does not change the expense of projecting force for an amphibious landing, but it does enable them to secure a territory and develop momentum for the next move.

I wouldn’t get entirely caught up in this - no rules will be changing anytime soon.

As for Mechs being too strong - the strength of the Axis is in mobility and concentrating its power.

Mechs are an enabler in this concept and probably should be struck from Japan’s ability to purchase at all.  That could help slow down Japan immensely on the mainland.

As for the Germans, they wouldn’t abuse Mechs so much and exploit their strength if they were forced to face a two front war sooner.  The entire game is premised on how fast the Allies can force the Germans to make defensive investments.

From my understanding, the earliest this can even happen is around US4-US5 and that is with a 100% Europe investment that will land 10 units per round in Europe going forward.  Unfortunately, the Russians have gone into full retreat by this point in the game and the Germans can “afford” to redirect income back to Europe to repel the early landings.

And…. we haven’t even talked about the Italians running interference on those landings yet.

@simon33:

@Spendo02:

clearly a kitchen sink effort to secure Yunnan from J2 gives one pause to consider the trade off.

I think the major problem with the kitchen sink effort is that you expose Russian mobile units from Russia in Szechwan to air (only) attack. FIC really needs reinforcement from Japan J2 or massive aerial reinforcement to survive a USSR3 mobile + air attack. But presumably that will occur and will thin out Shan State if you throw the kitchen sink that for J3. Throwing the kitchen sink at Yunnan J2 also means you can’t reinforce Suiyan significantly. I’m reconsidering this idea now.

My typical J2 includes moving in 4 ground units via the J1 2 TT purchase into FIC.  All aircraft also land there.  FIC is a linchpin territory to hold due to the ability to continue a stream of 3 ground units / turn within great proximity of multiple territories.

I also want to clarify that rarely do I see Russia get involved in China outside of stepping into Manchuria and/or Korea.  Clearly a player who tends to use the Russians to cause interference with Japan may simply require a J1 DOW to clear out its units in Amur and start chewing up IPC and territories once broken.

It may take a few games for the player controlling the Russians to stop running so much interference because a Japan and Germany working to take Moscow could spell problems for the Allies.  Turns the game into a race to Egypt.  Its actually a pretty boring game that way - the US could simply go watch a baseball game and come back before it can DOW.

@simon33:

I don’t really understand why the above is superior to YG’s approach for a J1 DOW. I only see 3 inf who can attack Yunnan J2 and maybe a Mec - is that all the ground that goes in there? Putting a max land based attack (4inf + 8ftr + 5tb + 2sb) vs max defence (13inf + 1mec + 2tb + 1ftr + 1tank - assuming all UK fighters are defending in India against strat bombing, one inf loss China1 and maximum USSR land help plus two planes) into the calculator I get the Japanese winning 92% but at the cost of 8 planes and that’s without insisting on taking the territory.

Nothing is ever fool proof - clearly a kitchen sink effort to secure Yunnan from J2 gives one pause to consider the trade off.  I think I actually alluded to it in my final talking points that there are times where it is not value-added to take Yunnan J2 because you’ll be much stronger on J3 and even more so on J4.

I have rarely seen (other than my own strategy) of moving the Russians into Yunnan early.  I know it can work but sometimes I question the trade off the Russians make if Japan actually does attack anyways.  Does that sink Moscow (it has for me)?  Are you already intending to replace those lost aircraft with Allied Aircraft from UK London or maybe Persia?

@ShadowHAwk:

Nice this gives the UK the option to take JAVA and anzac the option to get 2 NO’s.

UK would take Sumatra UK1.  Java is an option of course, but even if ANZAC sends its ships there, the entire weight of Japan’s Navy falls on it.  Unless ANZAC moves to Java, Japan can take it with no resistance on J2 considering Japan goes before both nations

And you leave the UK BB alone, could be interesting fleet wise to group everything in queensland that can get there round 1 and dare japan to attack it.
2 BB 2 cruisers 2 destroyers and 3 fighters should be enough to either make it a mutual annihilation ( ill take that ) or an allied victory.

UK can run to ANZAC if it wants with its BB.  It’ll be isolated there and playing escort duty at best.

And move the US air from midway to Quensland so you wont be taking that 1 either, also gives a nice attack option near the money islands. This will force you to protect the transports and you cant protect them all unless you use blockers which ill gladly destroy.

As I said, I don’t want to take Queensland early.  I just want it to appear that I could attempt to.  US can easily fly itself down there - and typically would - along with its Navy.  The alternative would be to establish a convoy in SZ6 and/or take Korea.  Both I spoke about and attempt to delay it where possible.

The Allies can always stage off Queensland.  In fact, it is suggested to do so in order to contest Japan’s expansion in the South Pacific.

This is nothing new, but the goal is for Japan to always be a single turn ahead of a tri-headed navy with a logical confrontation off of Malaya or Java as the IJN turns back from it’s siege of Calcutta.

Even the loss of DEI early is mitigated with IC placement as DD/SS/SB being mobilized there really change what the Allies thought was a well crafted trap of the IJN.

@simon33:

@Spendo02:

UK can of course make it more expensive to take by sending units to Yunnan, but it really makes no sense when Japan can skip right around via TT due to the minor in FIC being in the same SZ as Malaya which you should be able to take on J4.

Different SZ - SZ37 off Malaya. SZ36 off FIC.

UK, ANZAC and US need to try hard to hold Malaya as long as possible. If it falls by J4 I would want to be able to take it back. ANZAC doesn’t lose its NO if Japan takes it and UK retakes it.

Note that USSR mobile units in Yunnan threaten Kwangtung as well as FIC. Mobile units in Yunnan are quite awesome against a lot of factories. None of them can be strongly defended and if India is threatened, they can get there in one turn.

Let me give you my J1 Opener for discussion then:

Buy:
2 TT, 1 Minor IC (Placed in Kiangsu)
DOW on Western Powers
Combat:
Load TT in SZ19 with 1 ART from Manchuria, 1 INF from Okinawa
Load TT in SZ20 with 1 ART, 1 INF from Kiangsi
Load TT in SZ6 with 1 ART from Japan, 1 INF from Korea

Send all 3 TT to SZ35, Declare Amphibious on Flip
Send 1 FTR/TAC from SZ33 to Attack Flip
Send all remaining warships to SZ33, excluding the 2 DD in SZ6 and the DD in SZ19

Move 2 INF, 1 ART from Jehol into Chahar

Move 1 MEC from Manchuria to Anhwe
Move 3 INF, 1 ART from Shantung to Anhwe
Move 2 INF from Kiangsu to Anhwe

Move 1 INF from Kiangsi to Hunan
Fly 2 FTR and 2 TAC from Manchuria to Hunan
Fly 1 FTR from Formosa to Hunan

Move 1 INF from Kiangsi to Kwangtung
Fly 1 FTR from Okinawa to Kwangtung
Fly 2 FTR and 2 TAC from SZ6 to Kwangtung
Fly 1 FTR and 2 TAC from Japan to Kwangtung

Move 3 INF, 1 ART from Kwangsi to Yunnan
Fly 1 FTR and 1 TAC from Kiangsu to Yunnan
Fly 2 SB from Japan to Yunnan

Move 2 INF from Siam to FIC

Sideboard Discussion
In order to do this, you have to accept that you will be trading FTR for territory.  Specifically Kwangtung and Hunan.  As Japan starts with a preponderance of aircraft, I feel that to maximize your opening move on a J1, you must be willing to trade aircraft for territory to save time by not having to stall your advance.

In addition, the overkill at Flip is to ensure there are enough ground units to load on TT to take Borneo and two DEI on J2.  It also creates a very legitimate threat to Queensland as typically Japan is left with 4 or 5 units with the overkill present.  It is a great deterrent for ANZAC against fortressing up Java because Japan can swing straight to Queensland.  I never want to do this, but I want the threat to be present that I COULD.

Non-Combat:

Move 2 CV from SZ6 to SZ20
Land 2 FTR, 2 TAC from Kwangtung on the CV now in SZ20

Move 1 CV from SZ33 to SZ35
Land 1 FTR, 1 TAC from Flip on the CV now in SZ35

Move 1 DD from SZ19 to SZ36

Move 1 DD from SZ6 to SZ16

Move 3 INF from Korea to Manchuria
Move 1 FTR from Korea to Japan

Move 1 INF, 1 ART from Kiangsu to Kiangsi

Land all remaining aircraft operating in China on Kwangsi.

Second Sideboard Discussion
The DD in SZ36 is to block the bombard from a potential suicide mission against my stacked aircraft in Kwangsi.  Yes, UK Pacific can still reach them with its aircraft and two ground units, but it sacrifices so much of its threat by doing so (losing a TT, BB, 2 FTR and 1 TAC).  I’ve seen it done and Japan does lose a few planes, but typically UK at best limps home with a FTR or worse, gets diced out in a single round.  The DD is simply a reminder of how expensive that decision could be for them, and I’m okay with sinking the UK fleet on J2 if they send the kitchen sink there.

Note that a DD is left in SZ6 as well as one blocking in SZ16.  The US is able to send FTR from Hawaii to SZ6 and sink the transports you are about to place there and then move its fleet from SZ10 to SZ7 to land them.  Being able to scramble 2 FTR over a DD ensures that is a bad idea and secures that TT purchase.  The 4 units you’ll put on those TT are essential to keeping and holding Yunnan.  The DD in SZ16 ensures the US cannot send its fleet from Hawaii to SZ6 on its first turn.  As I vacated Korea, I am willing to trade a DD to ensure that the US has to wait an additional turn to do that if it so chooses.  In addition, I’d much rather Russia take Korea or attack my 9 INF in Manchuria.

You will also notice that there were 1 INF, 1 ART now in Kiangsi (from Kiangsu) that were not utilized.  There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the most important ones are:
First, they are an insurance policy for securing Kwangtung if something goes terribly wrong.  I do not want to have to choose between giving up DEI on J2 by diverting units remaining from taking Flip to secure Kwangtung.  This is what I’d term going backwards - and is something I’d prefer to avoid.
Second, in the case China decides to attack 1 the INF on Hunan and wins, I will have 1 INF, 1 ART, 1 MEC that can go there from both Kiangsi and Anhwe while still sending 5 INF and 1 ART to Kweichow.  This ensures I can threaten both Szechwan and Yunnan on J3 and does not allow China to simply continue stacking on Yunnan. 
Lastly, if all went well in China, that 1 INF and 1 ART can act as reinforcements that can be picked up by an empty TT from Flip and take Borneo.  It also allows me to leave (typically an ART) on Flip so ANZAC has to send more than a single INF to try to take it back.

Place Units:
Place 2 TT in SZ6
Place Minor IC on Kiangsu

*Note, I prefer Kiangsu over Shantung simply because I play for Jehol to be where I stop the flood of Reds if I get diced in Manchuria.  Having that extra space can buy me another round of purchases that could make the difference between losing my minor in China or not.

Some quick talking points on J2:
1. I almost exclusively buy 2 Minor IC to be placed in Kwangtung and French Indo China as well as purchasing 3 MEC for Kiangsu.

2. Those 3 MEC will combine with 4 units from the TT (J1 Purchase) for 7 units plus whatever makes it through Kweichow and Hunan to land on Yunnan all at the same time on J3.  See point 5 below on why knowing this timing is important.

3. Depending on what ANZAC does, Japan has a few options on what DEI to take.  Boreno is almost always taken.  Some combination of the other 3 typically occurs, Celebes being the most typical, followed by Java and lastly Sumatra.  I don’t like taking Sumatra too quickly, but even if you suicide a TT to land units, you do technically have TT bringing up the rear-guard that can swipe up those stranded units (after delivering 4 units from Japan to FIC - your new primary base of operations).  I’d much rather keep the TT for later than collect IPC now, have to repurchase it later and have it catch up to be relevant.  However, if the US is seriously threatening Tokyo, sacrificing a TT to gain 4 IPC plus a 5 IPC NO mean which translates to more INF on Tokyo next round - it MAY be worth the trade.

4. Yunnan can get very dicey on J2.  If the UK decides to stack up what it can from UK1, you could be facing a Chinese purchase, its surviving units from the attack, 2 extra UK INF and 2 FTR and 1 TAC.  This is really where you have to accept that losing planes now means you win later.  UK specifically cannot replace these lost units with ease.  Japan, to some extent can afford to lose some planes because it has Industrial Capacity coming up that will making the lost aircraft irrelevant due to the proximity and pressure MEC and ARM will put on Calcutta that now only has INF and a dwindling income to turtle with.  Plus, as all your aircraft on are the land, and only ANZAC may have aircraft left, you don’t necessarily need to have all your CV loaded with FTR/TAC going forward to claim the DEI and finish off India.

5. If J2 is where you could get diced, J3 is where the tide changes (reference point 2 above).  Going forward you will able to place some combination of 9 ARM or 6 ARM and 3 MEC per turn.  At least 2/3 of them will be within immediate striking distance of Yunnan the very next round.  So, sometimes it may be better to exercise patience and let China build its ART for a turn.  They won’t last very long with DEI controlled by Japan and industrial complexes churning out twice the units China can in a single turn.

6. Lastly, this strategy is a hybrid compliment to Grasshopper’s initial Japan playbook.  I cannot take credit for fully developing this strategy.