Is Japan a Monster? [Economic Breakdown]

[Pvt.Patterson]

Japan starts with atleast a 260+ army/ navy on the board…. its a moster. Were as the US after a good J1 should only have like 108+ IPC that can effect the Pacific.

3 CV    14=42                  1 CV  =14             
1 BB      20=20                  1  BB  =20
1 CA      12=12                  4 Fit  = 40
9 Fit      10= 90                3 DD  =24
1 DD      8=8                    2 tran =14 
4 Tran    7=28                  2 Bom =24

18 Inf    3=54                    6 Inf  =18
2  Art    4=8                      1 art  =4
1  Arm  5=5

= Monster  About 267          About  158
Pacific theather.

Yah, Japan is out of hand.
They can make up the IPC income gap with the US by J2.
And two transpots in J1 would help that alot because they could get their whole home force to china russia in J2
Have fun stoppin this whale Ahab!!!

[Lynxes]

I think the Allies can throw everything they have at Afr and the Italian fleet early with the intiention to kill the fleet and cripple Italy by rd 4.  After this the US has the freedom to confront Japan in the Pac if it wishes or just continue and try to actually take Rome or Berlin.

One caveat though: if Japan deploys its fleet aggressively vs. the West Coast, you really can’t wait since once your Pacific fleet is sunk it’s almost impossible to rebuild. You’ll be forced to build at least enough to defend yourself vs. a Jap carrier strike, but that doesn’t mean the basic strategy changes. You need a carrier and some auxiliary ships afloat off the West coast as a kernel of your Pacific fleet to have any chance of challenging Japan. (All this assuming abandoning the Pacific ocean is not your strategy.)

[Lucifer]

I still don’t see that Japan can be seriously challenged in the -41 map, NOs or no NOs doesn’t make any difference either.

[DarthMaximus]

@Lynxes:

You need a carrier and some auxiliary ships afloat off the West coast as a kernel of your Pacific fleet to have any chance of challenging Japan. (All this assuming abandoning the Pacific ocean is not your strategy.)

I will abandon, or at least make it look that way.  On US 1 the AC/DD either cover the UK trn (1 inf, 1 rt) and dd fleeing Aus or go to Sz 20 if it is safe from J air.

I try to buy lots of ftrs so if I do have to go Pac I can just buy 1-2 AC with DD cover b/c I already have the ftrs available to land.

A good counter (or deterent) to an early aggressive J fleet move toward the US is the early UK stack in Per.  Ind can be taken on J2, but UK has the ability to counter for 1-3 turns if Japan is only moving 1-2 inf there.  This usually forces Japan to make the full commitment and at least project strength with its AC/ftrs, buying the US the time it needs to set up in the Atlantic (rds 1-3).

It is not that easy for Japan to get significant ground forces to Northern Russia, thru China, to India, and to Aus early on.  So you are usually only dealing with stacks of 2-3 inf for any particular area.  These can be countered by consolidated UK stacks in Per and a Russian stack in Novo (could move into China as needed).

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes, Japan’s income of 60-65 is a lot of units, but those units won’t hit the front lines for another 4-5 turns.  So if Japan earns 60 in rd 3-4, the Allies don’t need to worry about those units until rd 7-8.  That is a ton of time for the Allies to cripple Italy and help Mos against Germany.

I’m not saying that Japan can necessarily stop the Allies from crushing Germany and Italy because they’re cashing out high. What I’m saying is that, even though you’re right that Japan’s per turn income is comparable to previous versions, they will be in a stronger position to take on the Allies themselves by the time Germany and Italy fall. Its possible that the Japs could still be in a position to win even after Berlin falls. The “cost” of playing KGF, if you like, is higher in this edition; not because Japan makes relatively more per turn now, but because they accumulate more money/units over time while the Allies are in Europe.

To be clear, I’m not advocating a KJF strategy. But, it may be more effective for the Allies (the US in particular) to not ignore Japan completely. Even a token force in the Pacific can work wonders at slowing down the Jap cash machine. There seems to be a sort of “diminishing returns” aspect in my view, where a couple extra units in Europe will help a little, but a couple extra units in the Pacific/Asia can help a lot.

So I think a more balanced approach (one which still focuses on Europe) could be more effective than a pure KGF.

[Umgar]

I have a similar experience as a previous poster; games where I’ve seen the Allies win were KGF.

~However~ in the games that were decisive Allied victories the US did not ignore Japan, they spent a portion of their IPC’s to harass Japan in the Pacific. How do you best do this as the US?

Subs.

and later in the game… subs + bombers.

Just building 3 subs off the US west coast for the low price of $18 on US1 causes a serious headache for Japan. First, if Japan went for a US aggressive strategy on J1 that left their carriers deep in the Pacific, placing subs off the US west coast forces an immediate retreat. Aside from that scenario a couple of subs per turn changes the tactical situation in the Pacific dramatically. Japan can’t send transports around the pacific theater willy-nilly unescorted (unless they’re OK with sacrificing the transport… but this results in a net positive IPC trade for the US). Otherwise Japan has to keep their fleet consolidated into 2 (maybe 3) groups; meaning much less flexibility and slower expansion. Japan is also forced to build destroyers to counter subs, and destroyers cost more than subs so again this is a net IPC gain against Japan.

In the end subs in the Pacific become a money-grinder for Japan. They have to spend $IPC to replace lost transports and build otherwise useless destroyers. Every $IPC spent by Japan to counter a US sub is an $IPC not being spent on land units into China/Russia. Meanwhile, the US still has plenty of $IPC leftover to send troops into the European theater and take down Germany.

US subs seem like the most “bang for the buck” way to slow down Japan while the Allies methodically take Germany apart… my .02 ;)

[Jennifer]

I wouldn’t really know if Japan can be challenged in 1941 without NOs.

With NO’s, America can easily close the financial gap with Japan and even surpass Japan production wise with minimal effort from England and Russia. I’ve done it a number of times.

The trick is to realize submarines for a useless unit in naval combat.  You might have a good offensive force with those 12-20 submarines, but the other guy with 9-15 Destroyers (same cost) has a better defense and has units to block your attack with so he can move into range of your fleet forcing you to retreat or go on the defense (making those 12-20 submarines almost completely useless.)

I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

Of course, this assumes both sides have battleship(s), carrier(s) and fighters, maybe even a cruiser or cruisers as well. (Though, I find Cruisers of limited utility.  They seem good for England who is strapped for cash early on, but not so good for America and Japan who either want the two hit ability of battleships or the multiple units of Destroyers.)

[Umgar]

@Cmdr:

I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

As Japan if you spend enough time and $IPC to build an entire “picket line” of destroyers to counter a handful of US subs then the subs have done their job and the US has won that battle.

The point of the US throwing subs into the Pacific theater is not to take down the Japanese navy; it’s three things:

1. force Japan’s ships into a defensive/consolidated posture which is less flexible on offense and more importantly slower to expand.
2. force Japan to spend $IPC on something other than the land war in Asia
3. do #1 and #2 as cheaply as possible and make it cost more for Japan than it costs the US

[Lucifer]

In a typical J1, Japan will have about 40 ipc production at the end of J1, using NOs. Without NOs it will then be ca. 30 ipc.

So at at the end of J1 regardless of NOs, Japan will be at the same production level as the US.

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

By the time this occurs Afr and the Italian fleet should be in the process of being cleared, so at this point the US can freely go after or defend against Japan.  A proper US shuck starts in Wus on turn 1 anyway and slowly builds up to 8-10 units (for 4-5 trns to go to Alg).  I just don’t think that it is an inviting target for Japan, to see 8 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wcan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wus.  So the US pulls back one turn and stacks 2 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 14 inf in Wcan, 8 inf, 4 arm in Wus.  Is this a good target for Japan?

Yep, this is a pretty good target. You forget the massive AC fleet Japan startsand the buys fron J1: 6/7 trannies (12/14 land units) plus 6 fighters from ACs can beat any of wusa or wcan. You probably will retreat to wusa and left wcan empty better, but you are losing 1 round at least, and one round is all Italy needs to keep Africa. And nothing prevents Japan landings in Alaska

[DarthMaximus]

But how early can you do that?
Japan also has build limit of 8, so at some point you’ll need at least 2 ICs.  Where do those get placed and when?

12-14 units is 36-42 ipc which is more than half J’s income and that is if they buy inf only.

I like a 2 trn J1 buy, but that is not enough to threaten the US early on, considering Japan still has to send at least 1 trn to Aus.  Is Japan threatening India on J2?

The cost of 2 ICs and say 4 trns is 58 ipc.  That is essentially all of J1 cash (17) and J2 (~40-42 ipc) spent on non-attacking, non-territory holding units.

I understand China is weak, but they aren’t that weak that they won’t chew up the initial burst of Japanese Asia units, esp when reinforced by a few Russians.

How do you push through India/Per with enough force to prevent a counter from the Allies in Cauc?

You also have to contend with Russia as you approach Novo and Russia can lose Bury, Sfe, Stc, Eve and Yak but make up for it with Fin and Nor.  Russia routinely earns mid 30’s to 40’s in a KGF type game.

I just thought of this, which may help, I’m currently playing a KGF game and here is the cash earned earned so far.

(Cash on hand at the end of each rd)
Country:  Rd 1 - Rd 2 - Rd 3 - Rd 4

Ger:  45 - 43 - 38- 39
Jap:  42 - 55 - 60 - 65
Ita:  17 - 19 - 12 - 9

Tot:  104 - 117 - 110 - 113

Rus:  34 - 39 - 49 - 48
UK:  40 - 29 - 26 - 31
US:  48 - 48 - 48 - 54

Tot:  122 - 116 - 123 - 133

Now, in this game Japan is going after Moscow, Russia is holding her own, so I don’t see how Russia couldn’t hold her own if Japan is committing ~ 40 ipc to Ala/Wcan.  The Allies can earn as much or more then the Axis in each rd.

Also, if the argument is the US needs to spend on the Pac, then I don’t see much difference in spending the 40-48 ipc on ground troops to fight in Ala/Wcan compared to the trns/subs/dd etc plus ground troops to fight at Sea and take islands.  At least if you are fighting in Ala/Wcan you didn’t have to waste money on ships and you got to aid Europe for 3-4 turns.

[atarihuana]

J1 IC to FIC, J2 IC to eastindies or J3 to india. i lreally like the FIC IC. i can produce AC / BB / CA here if i must without needing to protect them  from air in early rounds

[Jennifer]

Umgar:

I think you misunderstand.

America must first build enough submarines to constitute a threat.  They then must have a significant force of these submarines scattered around in half a dozen sea zones in order to encourage Japan to put destroyers all over the place.

In reality, America would have maybe two piles of submarines 3 territories away. (Any closer and Japan would sink them.)  Or America would have a pile of submarines protected by a line of destroyers.

In either case, it would only take one, two or three Japanese destroyers to successfully block those submarines from attacking the fleet.  However, the Americans wouldn’t be able to just kill a destroyer and leave her submarines there because the attacking Japanese fleet would obliterate them without significant effort.

Basically, if America is going 100% submarines (or close) as I see advocated by a few people here and there, they’ll just end up shooting themselves in the foot without adversely affecting Japan at all.

Submarines will end up costing the United States significantly more than a couple of destroyers for Japan.  This is because the fighters Japan is using to sink those submarines (at the cost of a destroyer or two) is negligent given the fact those same fighters can move inland again to assist against Russia and China.

---

I agree with DM, Japan will need at least two, maybe more ICs.

I like Manchuria for the first one because if you lose it, it is worthless. (China does not need an IC and can’t use it anyway.)  However, it is a 3 IPC territory meaning you can build 3-5 units there (if you have the tech.)

For the second, I like FIC because it’s pretty darn safe and it’s significantly further inland from Japan and Manchuria.

Then I also like one in Burma and later one in India.  I just like the idea of Japan not needing to build anything on Japan and not needing transports at all.  I feel more flexible.

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

I understand China is weak, but they aren’t that weak that they won’t chew up the initial burst of Japanese Asia units, esp when reinforced by a few Russians.

Japan should kill China J1, and in one round in most of battles. China starts with a crappy total of 4 inf, 1 fig and pops 1 last inf in round 1. Let’s say the fig survives the 1st round of attack, this means 5 defenses with infs, 2 with the fig -> usually 18 defense points -> 3 loses . Japan starts with 9 infs in mainland plus probably 2 more from some trannie. China will not do any real damage to Japan unless you make the error of not doing a total attack against them J1 OR crappy luck

I don’t know how are soviets playing in your game, but if they are winning 48-49 two rounds, it means they have the 2nd NO, and there is no way of soviets taking it so soon but bad axis play or crappiest dices. Send soviet units to China and USSR will have a very hard time against germans

I still don’t think KGF is the way, west axis is too strong even if they lost Africa, Japan is too powerful and USA will not send enough aid to Europe if Japan attacks America, that is in fact nearer from Japan than Moscow

[Jennifer]

I agree with Func.  In 1941 there should not be more than 1 Chinese infantry left on the board.  Killing the fighter is paramount!  (I’ve toyed with letting it live in the hopes of killing it later, it never works out well for me.)

[DarthMaximus]

That’s not entirely true.  While they can kill most of China’s units on J1 it still takes 3 turns to get through all of China.  The point is if Japan sends its 9 inf after China in round 1 (which is should), it will likely lose 3.  1 inf lost in 3 or 4 ter.  I forget off hand how many they can attack.  But 3 inf vs. 1 inf is a should win battle, but odds are decent, esp if it goes multiple rds to lose 1 inf.  So Japan is down to 6 inf, and China is at 3 (they’ll likely get to place 2 on US-Chi 1).  China can retreat and/or picket another 2-3 ter.  I like to retreat all inf but it doesn’t matter.  The point is by time Japan gets its initial inf through China (on J3) they are down to 3-5 inf.  THIS IS COUNTERABLE BY RUSSIA, who retreated it’s 9 Eastern inf back to Novo.  Goodbye J inf and welcome back China.  This is why Japan needs a steady flow of inf behind the initial thrust.  The 9 starting inf are enough to clear and kill China but not nearly enough to enter Kaz/Novo.  Russia will eat them alive.  Japanese reinforcements need to land (or be placed at an IC) in Asia in Rd 2 otherwise there is a gap in Japan’s defense.

I’m not arguing that China can’t be killed or that they are somehow strong, I’m just saying that they can cut down Japan’s starting inf.

Here’s another likely scenerio.  Japan is doing its normal damage to China and China retreats/places its last inf in Chi (last China ter) boarding Novo.  Now Russia takes the inf that started in Yak/Stc/Bury (when avail) retreats to Novo then reinforces the China inf in Chi.  So you end up with a mixed stack of 8 inf.  Can 6 Jap inf win?  No.  They need ftr help.  Well they may not have the ftrs if they are off taking Aus or in Sz 62, or off the coast of Ind, or harassing HI or Ala.

I think people assume that Japan just walks through Asia, and yes that is true to an extent, but it doesn’t mean they don’t run into resistance as they approach Mos or Persia.  Russia with 2-3 inf out East isn’t strong, but if they put all those inf into Novo or Kaz and all of a sudden have 10 inf, then that is a different story.

[Jennifer]

Yes, they cut down Japan’s starting infantry, but that’s not a huge deal since Japan is earning so much.

China itself should be a non-entity before China Round 1.

Japan Round 1, the way I do it, leaves China with 1 Infantry and 4 Territories.  So at the end of China 1 they have 3 Infantry
Japan Round 2, if China put their infantry in the way of advancing forces - and most players do, should reduce China to 0 Infantry and 1 Territory.  So at the end of China 2 they have 0 Infantry and 1 Territory.

In other words, after Japan 2, there is no China.

[DarthMaximus]

Yes, I agree China is essentially a non-entity by J2, but in the case you describe (China with 3 inf), they should not split those up and  they should be retreating them to Chi.  This way Russia can reinforce, if they deem they have some of the initial Eastern inf to spare.  Now I understand China will not be getting more inf but if Russia reinforces with 3-4 inf, now you have a stack of 7 inf.  Japan needs ftrs in range to kill that stack, which they may or may not be depending on Japs Pac moves which brings me to this…

This little scenerio was in response to a Jap planned assualt/harassing on Ala/Wcan and potential aggressive moves against the US to stop/interupt the US shuck in KGF.

Now if you play Japan and dash to Mos then you’re right, the Allies have to use other counters, but my point is Japan cannot assume its initial inf and J1 landings will be enough to get through all of China and India because they won’t.  Check that, they may be enough to get through, but they won’t be enough to even remotely threaten Moscow.  The loss of all the China territories does nothing to weaken Russia, it doesn’t even weaken the US at all, it just gives Japan some extra ipcs.  Enough to buy 3 more inf, big deal considering they need at least 2 ICs to over take Russia’s production (assume Kar is lost briefly to Ger at some point).

If you are reinforcing Asia with a decent amount of troops on J2/J3 then I completely agree with you and all other strong J players.

BUT it is when Japan goes after essentially every island by J2 (including HI, Ngu and/or Sol) where they can run into trouble against an Allied Strategic Retreat Strategy.

@Cmdr:

…Japan is earning so much.

Irrelevant to killing the initial China resistance. 
Japan earning 42+, 50+ on J2, J3 doesn’t reach Chi until J5, J6.
At best, you’ll get to put your initial 17 ipc into play (I like the 2 trn 1 inf buy).  By then China did its job, it cut the intial J inf stack in half or more which gives Russia the ability to handle the J survivors for another couple of rds, until the massive reinforcements arrive in Rd 6,7, etc. from the high J incomes that start from rd 2 on.

Russia can handle stacks of 2-3 J inf, but they can’t handle stacks of 6-7+, so if China can whittle down the initial stack to 3-5 inf or less then that is a huge success for the Allies, esp if their is a gap of very few reinforcements for a turn or 2.

[Funcioneta]

Soviets can defend Chinghai, but this is the farest they will get or they can be toasted by germans. A mixed stack of soviets plus the last chinese in Chinghai will not damage Japan if they counter KGF with a Polar Express. Japan can simply send a stack enogh great to defend from rogue soviet attacks (3-5 should be enough) and focus on Pacific expansion, India and Polar Express. Your target with Japan is not Moscow in this strat, is halt USA to prevent they can reinforce Africa or Europe, and when USA are halted, Japan can start sending token forces to Africa or Siberia while still menacing America.

Compare this with Revised, where soviets could send a couple of token inf and tanks to China and create havoc in Japan’s rear. It was possible because of shorter distances (and weaker Germany compared to new western Axis), but in AA50 not. Also, chinese territories recovered meant more income to USA, but now it’s hardly of any use to allied cause in 1941 because China collects popcorn inf at start of her turn  :-P It’s slighty better for allies in 1942 because Japan’s turn is not between soviets and USA, and China starts stronger

[DarthMaximus]

I always liked Japan going after the US in Revised a bit better b/c you could land directly into Wcan.  I think it may have been easier to pull off the surpise aspect of it.

I’m not sure that exist in AA50. 
Granted I haven’t had a lot of J players go after me when I’m US, unless I started it by going Pac first, so I’m just having touble seeing how Japan can do it (fairly quickly that is, by rd 3-4?) without weakening some other area.  Any time after that and the US should be somewhat prepared for it and if it has to it can turn all its ipc to Japan at that point (after you’ve landed in Afr rd 2-3 and sunk the Ita fleet rd 3-4).

I should say I agree that I think Japan can go after the US, I just don’t think it has the capability to surprise the US and catch them off guard.  I’m just not convinced going after the US is the easier (or cheaper) task between the choice of WUS vs. Mos.