Posts made by Uncle_Joe

The biggest thing I think Japan is short on is TRs in theater and that is what I build in that first turn or two. This lets me take the DEI and PI (the latter without gambling on a lower-odds attack). It also means that I have more threat capacity against the Anzacs and even Hawaii if the US gets cute.

I’ll look again the next time I have it set up, but the last time this idea was presented I took a long critical look at the advantages of a J1 attack and found them less appealing than a slower and steadier approach of a J2/J3 attack.

Don’t get me wrong, I do see some things I like in a J1 attack (namely killing a LOT of Allied TR capacity in one turn with minimal loss). But my sense of it from watching my Japanese opponents try and lose twice is that you are putting too many balls in the air at once. If you mis-step at all, the whole thing can come crashing down.

The advantages I see to waiting are that you get all of your duckies in a row before the Allies can begin to effectively respond as well as being able to pound the Chinese with all of your airpower for a turn or so before starting to relocate assets. You also keep a secure eastern border since the US cannot attack you.

My wins with Japan so far have been with J3 attacks, but I’m starting to lean towards a J2 attack depending on what the Allies do on their first turn. Doing so has let me deal with the Allies in the order in which I choose rather than letting the Allies all play at once. Basically you pound the Chinese while getting in position to trash the Brits. There is nothing they or the US can do about it this point. When you finally unleash, the Brits are pretty much pounded into submission within a turn or two and you can turn and deal with the US with a clear backfield.

A J1 attack has been tempting, but I see places where I’ll be fighting more lower odds battles. Granted they are still favorable battles, but I prefer maximum overkill to minimize losses.

Not really a ‘trick’, but inexperienced players seem to miss some crucial sea zone connections around Australia. It’s amazing how quickly the US can get into the DEI through that route.

If you at the Aussie naval base you can hit almost all of the DEI as well as PI and can even land in Burma (!) in one turn! It’s things like that that Allied players miss that give th Japanese a bigger advantage. Once you see those, it’s MUCH harder on Japan IMO.

In our last game, we decided to give the Cruisers a pretty good workout as the Allies. Honestly they worked fairly well. In straight up combat they are not as cost efficient as DDs but they give threat potential to escort a TR for the attack and get bombardment. No, having 1 isnt likely to do much, but having 2-3 in a fleet means that anywhere they can reach can be under pretty serious threat from a TR or two. I’m not sure I would build them on a consistent basis (and certainly not as Japan at this point), but they at least performed SOME role in our game.

That said, I think 11 would probably be a better price point for them if they are intended to be purchased for sea combat.

32 + 29 = 61.  So you are ahead by 21 IPC in value compared to not attacking.

Yes and no. Remember that you are giving the US +40 IPCs for potentially a 2nd turns as well unless you advocated a J2 alternative. The flip side is that the UK makes less money instead.

I think it 100% depends on what basic strategy you intend to employ and what the Allies are doing (assuming you dont go on J1 that is). I am generally an advocate of the J3 attack at this point, but the Allies might leave enough stuff vulnerable to make a J2 attack more attractive.

Our current Allied ‘counter’ to the J3 attack looks to be to have the Brits take the entire DEI and the Amis set up to head to Australia to threaten the DEI and PI after the Japanese attack (with the Aussies positioning to get their bonus on AZ2). This give the Brits 29 IPCs on UK1 and 37 on UK2. That is a lot of money to put into grunts for Japan to slog through. Sooo, the Japanese can pre-empt that 37 IPC windfall by attacking on J2 and killing both Brit TRs. It also allows the Japanese to take PI before any reinforcements can possibly get there.

Personally I’m starting to lean towards being unpredictable as the Japanese. That keeps the Allies guessing and prevents them from doing ‘optimal’ planning.

We had our first ‘real’ win as the Allies tonight. And by ‘real’ I dont mean we played it out to the bitter end (a waste of time IMO) but it was the first time Japan lost without either some pretty horrible mistakes or really bad luck on the part of the Japanese player.

In brief, it was a combination of Brit boots on the ground with some additional naval assets, US commitment to Australia and into the DEI, and Aussie threat from airpower based in Australia coupled with a handful of Subs and DDs.

I do believe that the Japanese play was not optimal, but it was certainly not sloppy. Japan poured a lot of resources into the ground war to match the Brit commitment but he did take down China as quickly as we’ve seen in some of our games. Some of that was the need to keep pressure on the Brits was some of it was simply being too conservative and avoiding risks. Peronally I think the Japanese player wants to push hard on the mainland before the US can intervene and divide Japan’s attention.

One thing we experimented with for the US was not going Carrier-heavy but instead concentrating on SSs, DDs, and yes, a number of CAs. The latter were more to see if we could make them work and they performed adequately as a threat when paired with a TR or two loaded with Inf/Art. The threat of the 2 shelling attacks caused to Japan to garrison a little heavier and be a little more cagey about what he left exposed. In combat, the surface fleet performed well. In terms of actual numbers, a loaded CV cost 36 or 37 (Depending on loadout - assume 36 for people who hate TacAir ;) ). For just 4 IPCs more you can get 2 SS, 2 DD, and 1 CA. On the attack that is 6 strength with 4 hits for the CV but 11 strenght and 5 for the standard ships. On defense, the CV comes off a bit better with 10 points and 4 hits vs 9 and 5 hits. The CV offers more flexibility if you have LBA around and it allows for strikes at range 3 if you arent at a naval base. But the standard surface forces have a lot of versatility in terms of dispersal and convoy attacks. I’d say a combo of both builds would be ideal.

At any rate the Japanese eventually wiped out the Chinese but were stalled trying to get into the Brit holdings. By the end of the game they still had not completely been able to subdue all of the DEI and the IJN had dwindled down to a handful of ships. Meanwhile the US was pumping out full fleets each turn and the Anzacs were launching forays into the DEI as well as opportunities arose.

All in all it was the first time that Japan 1) looked somewhat vulnerable and 2) did not seem to have enough assets to adequately complete all the necessary tasks. Dont get me wrong, it was still a harder win for the Allies than it had been previously for any of the Japanese wins, but it was still a pretty decisive win for the Allies.

Well, I guess if Japan devotes her whole opening towards taking and holding Hawaii you probably arent going to stop it. But as the Allies I dont think I’m really that worried about that opening. I think not taking PI and the DEI and hitting the Brits HARD is a terrible mistake. 90% of the Ami money is untouchable due to the massive NO bonus so you really arent taking away Allied money by being over there. And you really dont have a serious chance of taking out the US West Coast so that means you have to standoff the ever increasing US presence in their own front yard (to which I see little to no appeal).

Ahh, I understand.

Well in that case, if you can pull it off as the US it’s probably a good idea for the reasons listed as to why it would be a bad idea for Japan. :)

If you are looking at it as a ploy, then the US should probably try and minimize losses. I wouldnt send any planes stationed at Pearl out to play - save them for the counter attack. Also, make sure the Brits are in position to capitalize on the Japanese fleet being away. They might be able to stage a nice raid on the DEI or farther up the coast of China.

I think it’s a bad idea. The US fleet is not a more important target than the DEI, PI, and Kwangtung. Also, you have to be able to survive the counter-attack which will likely consist of bombers and naval units from San Fran. In all likelihood you will not be able to actually take the island so you wont have the naval base, meaning leaving will be quite slow as well.

I dont see that it is a good decision against a competent opponent.

Yes, the nations that are not ‘at war’ can ignore each others ships so Japan cannot cut England off from taking the DEI.

Yes, I am currently favoring a similar plan for a J3 attack. I believe Japan should build an IC for the mainland and 2 TRs in Japan to bring troops into the battle area on J2 in prep for kick-off on J3.

Japan should take Kwangtung, PI, and some combination of the DEI and Malaya based on how the Brits have deployed. If you are feeling ballsy, take one of the islands that is giving the Anzac’s their bonus as well, but this will likely leave a portion of your fleet exposed (or else sacrifice a TR which can be costly that early).

With the bulk of your fleet in the DEI area the Brit econ should pretty much be dead by UK3. Follow-up by hunting down the RN and then turn and prep to take on the growing US while finishing off mainland China and UK.

My opinions in summary:

–You need a factory on the mainland. It’s debatable where, but against a competent Allied player you’ll need the boots on the ground.

–You’ll need a lot more TRs. Time is your enemy and having more TRs means delivering more combat power where you need it faster

–I favor a J3 attack. Spend 2 turns pounding on the Chinese with all of your air and getting troops and TRs in position to take everything you need within 2 turns of the DoW on the Allies.

–Try and keep your fleet massed. None of the Allies has the slightest chance against the full weight of metal that Japan can throw around. Granted you’ll likely have to spread out a little to accomplish everything you need, but try and mass up agains ASAP.

–Keep Truk and Japan garrisoned with fighters/tac. As long as you do this and have minimal infantry on the ground they will be EXTREMELY hard to take due to the Scramble rules.

–The primary goal if this strategy is the complete destruction of China with minimal losses and then a heavy focus on India. You only need to fend off the US and Anzac - you dont not need to decisively engage them. PI must fall on J3 to remove the US presence and to get the naval base, but beyond that you dont need to fight them unless they expose themselves to a favorable trade.

Have any of y’all tried garrisoning the islands? If the Japanese dont go with a J1 attack, then it’s likely the Brits will use the TRs to take some of the DEI. Given that, do you think it’s a good idea to put 2 Inf on the islands or cut losses and go with 1?

I think if you are going to build ground forces with the UK, it makes a lot of sense to put 2 Inf per island. This means that Japan has to plan for and execute a ‘real’ attack on each rather than just the 1 guy dump-offs. It also gives the possibility (small, but still) that a 2 unit invasion will fail (or at least cost a plane to succeed).

One of the goals for the Brits (and Chinese) is to bleed off Japanese troops at the front. Japan has a hard time getting men forward without building lots of additional TRs which will dilute their combat capability against the US. The question is whether it is a better trade on those islands or better to keep the mass in India/Burma/Malaya. I’m currently leaning towards the islands since it’s harder for Japan to bring overwhelming combat power to hit each one.

I think it depends on what the Japanese do. If they stay massed up, the US threat down South wouldnt be very real. But staying massed up cost the Japanese time. If the Brits can hold out for a while, things might turn against Japan.

One thing we have wrestled with the Allies is that being at Pearl isnt really a threat to the Japanese. As long as Japan maintains a credible air force on Japan and has some trickling builds of ships in the home waters there really isnt much the US can do up there. Best case would be the landing in Manchuria/Korea, but this would require significant force to pull off and Japan can easily relocate for defense if the US masses up too much at Pearl. The interior lines that Japan enjoys make offensive action against her extremely difficult.

What I’m trying to find is a way to split the Japanese up and make them take some risks rather than committing massiving overkill to every fight. I think it is going to take a combination of threats to do that but they do have to be real threats.

Hehe, yeah, I figured it would be rough. But in most of our recent games Japan’s navy is often busy pasting the Brits for the first few turns so that does leave open the possibility of a US capture of Iwo with a survivable force. Given that, this could work as a deterrent to pin Japanese fighters in Japan rather than in China and India killing ground troops.

Of course the US would need to have a threat capable of hitting the DEI too and I’m not sure that is possible. But it is an interesting idea if Japan gets too cute in India.

I’ve tried both ways and given our current Japanese strategies in use, I prefer boots on the ground. Perhaps an additional DD for blocking or maybe a SS for harassment, but beyond that its grunts, arty, and possibly another AA-gun.

But so much depends on when Japan attacks. If they go for a J1 attack, Brit income is so low that it really doesnt matter. All you can afford is a few infantry anyways. If Japan delays to build up, then the Brits can make some decent income and really have to decide where to play.

My experience has been that Japan is much easier to beat on the ground than at sea. Japan has a harder time getting troops that far into Asia and that magnifies any Brit ground power.

The only way I would consider building a large navy again would be if the US had commited a lot of ships to Australia and was splitting the Japanese attention. Otherwise you are going to lose your whole navy to very little loss for Japan IME.

I dont think any plane throwing is necessary. These are just free attacks with a ‘2’ AFAIK.

@GrayBlaZe:

I’m still evaluating and learning AAP40 but I agree it seems to lean twards a Japanese victory.  Japan can completely wipe out China and have the UK backed in a conrner with no more navy before the US knows what had happen and can’t do a thing to help.  However, one thing I’m looking into now in favor of the allies is American stratigic bombers in Imo Jimo, along with enough navy and scramling fighters to keep them safe, it can do a lot of damage to Japanese industries.  A bomber can fly nonstop (7 spaces) from Western US to Imo Jimo.  It not that hard to do since Japan is busy taking over China and the UK in India.

Interesting. My read of the new SBR rules kind of leans towards it no longer being a viable option. In my experience, Japan already tends to keep Fighters available in Japan for defense of the home sea. Performing SBR runs is opening up the US to horrible trades of fighters at 10 IPCs a piece. Then again, it might just force Japan to leave enough fighters home to pull some off the line. It also give the US a direct ability to hit Japan’s airpower (albeit with relatively low odds). Please let me know if it works out when you get a chace to try it (and it certain did in real life ;) ).

One of my friends playing the US took Iwo and staged bombers, fighters, and navy there with the intention of threatening any new Japanese builds but in the end it was too little, too late. It still didnt impact the Japanese econ directly and that made it somewhat less than useful for helping out the Brits.

If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.

Yes, I would very much like to see that. That would REALLY mix things up a bit IMO.