A Discussion on Japan

[newpaintbrush]

Hobbes already mentioned the sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber Pearl attack.  The Caroline Islands fighter can land on Wake.  This is what I almost always do.

You can try the risky sub/fighter vs US Pacific battleship, with everything else to Pearl.

Or the even riskier (almost suicidally bad odds with very bad consequences in case of failure) attempt to take Hawaiian Islands.  The only reason this is even worth considering is if US kills your Japan fleet at Hawaii, you can take the carrier as a casualty before fighters.  But it’s still not great.

Or you can just go Pearl super heavy (bring all the fighters you can), and take fighters or even bomber as casualties when you can.  Your remaining fleet should be sub/cruiser/battleship/carrier/2 fighters.  That’s rather a lot to deal with.

–

Re:  your question what would I have done differently?  Probably mix in infantry with tanks, and buy a few subs in addition to those bombers.  Probably a destroyer or two at some point to chase away enemy subs and act as air fodder.
But then I can’t say infantry would definitely have been the right thing to do.  If Russia was getting rocked, it would be best to use pure tanks to press home the advantage.  There’s times and places for different strategies.

–

Re:  Taking advantage of Pearl fleet still alive as US:

I don’t care much if Pearl is alive or dead with US (except for the fact that if Pearl remains alive, US can often pull interesting tricks with its fighters attacking Japan’s fleet that it normally can’t).

To me, the REAL question on whether or not to attack Pacific is - what happened to Japan’s fleet?  If Japan was careless, and lost 2 capital ships (battleships and/or aircraft carriers), maybe some air, and US still has its battleship, then it’s worth thinking about fighting for the Pacific.

[Granada]

1. I consider it a mistake if Japanese player does pearl heavy or with everything he has, because almost always it allows for a counter. In case I can sink a jap bb and rest of the boats of Hawaii, i go full speed on Japan with US. And of course it is really risky to send ac with both planes, because you can just straffe the fleet, let the AC sink, retreat and the jap figs would be gone too.

2. If Japan does not do Hawaii, I go full speed on Japan with US too.

These are two Japanese openings that both open the door in Pacific. Hence the middle road is best in this case I would say.

3. Like Hobbes or Bunny have written, I also always do pearl with 4 units. In case i use the sub to sink the UK trn which I often do, I send bmb, 2figs and a cru. Otherwise, in case i can kill the trn with a fig, I send sub, cru, fig and bmb. If there are two hits, I retreat the ac and the plane to SZ east of Japan, if both planes are alive i send them to SZ of Wake. In case the AC is then sunk by US or UK sub the planes just land on wake, kill the sub with a dd i have built J1 and move on to do tasks in Asia or Europe.

4. I really do not expose my BBs and the other AC. If US tries to go after me, I consolidate my fleet BEFORE the US can start to move west from LA, usually R3. I then use the advantage of playing before US and do buy just enough subs to sink the US fleet if it dares to move within the reach of my ships and planes. I would usually have 2 BB, 1-2 AC, dd, 4 fig, bmb and a bunch of subs. My experince is that in this way you can ussually hold of the US long enough before the Japan makes substantial progress on the land and before the German pressure becomes unbearable.

5. Economy of Japan is the key when playing under pressure but even if your oposition is trying to KGF you and you need the Japanese units to reach moscow really fast and espcially as strong as possible. You do not want to put on water more than is absolutely necessary. And you really DO NOT NEED an IC on the land earlier then R4. You can produce 2 subs and 6 land units in japan and use the set of 3 trns (1 starting and 2 you bought J1) to send them on mainland. If you keep the US fleet honest and keep the constant flow of 6 units a round on the mainland you should be safe. The IC is a very common distraction. But it is 3tnks or 5 inf less you could have at the same place and at the same time or even earlier then with the IC. I would say there is a golden rule: never build a Japan IC before your income is too high for the Japan production capacity to cope with.

[ragnarok628]

i find point 5 interesting.  i tried once to build several ICs as japan and it really didn’t work, but i just couldn’t figure out why.  i think you explained it.

[Hobbes]

@Granada:

I would say there is a golden rule: never build a Japan IC before your income is too high for the Japan production capacity to cope with.

Except if you conquer India on J1 :)

[Granada]

@Hobbes:

@Granada:

I would say there is a golden rule: never build a Japan IC before your income is too high for the Japan production capacity to cope with.

Except if you conquer India on J1 :)

This is interesting. Do you mean to build an IC on India on J2? I have found that very tricky because so far the Allies really could push hard there. And you even see the terrible triple punch – US inf taking Persia, Rusian tanks storming India and UK fortifiing and producing units there. I think this is the trick you mentioned. I usually tend to keep the southern and central route just balanced and not to expose my limited japanese forces there and march 8 units a round the northern route which is the quickest way to press Russians from east effectively. Only about on R3-4 I build the IC on FIC either to fortify the Central and Southern positions or to support the pressure on Moscow.

[Hobbes]

@Granada:

@Hobbes:

@Granada:

I would say there is a golden rule: never build a Japan IC before your income is too high for the Japan production capacity to cope with.

Except if you conquer India on J1 :)

This is interesting. Do you mean to build an IC on India on J2? I have found that very tricky because so far the Allies really could push hard there. And you even see the terrible triple punch – US inf taking Persia, Rusian tanks storming India and UK fortifiing and producing units there. I think this is the trick you mentioned. I usually tend to keep the southern and central route just balanced and not to expose my limited japanese forces there and march 8 units a round the northern route which is the quickest way to press Russians from east effectively. Only about on R3-4 I build the IC on FIC either to fortify the Central and Southern positions or to support the pressure on Moscow.

You’re absolutely right - it can be suicide for Japan, but if the Allies don’t respond to it (by placing Russian armor on Caucasus to prevent Japan from building the IC) then it can became a thorn to Russia. And after Japan places it, any Russian units send to try to take it will be less units to defend against Germany while Japan can land 6-8 units on FIC to prevent its capture, along with fighters.

[coorran]

I agree. I used to do IC on J1, but I’m more into TRN now. However, the India IC on J2 is a must, if possible. Its location is much more valuable than Manch or FIC.

[mtngoatjoe]

If the UK abandons India on UK 1, then I think conditions are ripe to build an IPC in FIC on J1, and then another IPC in India on J2 (assuming the Russians can’t prevent you from placing units on it on J3). If you can place units J3, then at the end of J3 you’ll have at least 6 ground units (and as many as 10), and however many fighters you’ve sent.

But even if Russia is in a position to fight over India, I’d say bring it on. Like Hobbes said, any units sent to India won’t be heading toward Germany. If Japan builds an IC in FIC on J1, then Japan could almost certainly take India back if it commits. The earlier Russia starts fighting Japan, the sooner it’s bleed dry. Even if India changes hands every turn, I’d say that favors the Axis.

In my game, the US player build heavily in the Pacific, so it actually held me up for a round, but the fact that I could build six units per turn near the Caucuses is a big deal. If Germany takes a northern route to Moscow, then Russia has to split its forces to defend its two key territories.

The downside is that even if the US doesn’t do much in the Pacific, it’s still hard for Japan to keep the Russian troops in eastern Russia from heading south one territory if Japan doesn’t build transports (which it wouldn’t want to if it’s building ICs). If Germany is having any setbacks on its eastern front, Russia can end up with 30+ IPCs at the end of R3. And if that’s the case, then it’s a slow road to take IPCs away.

But not matter how things go, if you have transports, you have to protect them. I know I’m probably making a bigger deal of this than it is, but if the US has a Pacific fleet, it can island hop until Japan decides to deal with it. But once Japan moves its fleet out of SZ60, then its transports could be vulnerable (if the US has staged fighters and/or bombers in advance). There are a lot of what-ifs here, but if Japan builds ICs, then it doesn’t have transports to protect, which give its fleet and air units more flexibility.

If Germany can take Africa, and if the German eastern front doesn’t collapse, and if the Allies don’t fight for India or Eastern Chine, and if the US commits to the Pacific, and if the dice don’t bounce off the table and over your head and take a big dump on you. If, if, if.

[Hobbes]

@mtngoatjoe:

If, If, if, if.

Famous last words :)

[newpaintbrush]

@Hobbes:

@mtngoatjoe:

If, If, if, if.

Famous last words :)

As famous as “Oops”?

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

@Hobbes:

@mtngoatjoe:

If, If, if, if.

Famous last words :)

As famous as “Oops”?

True, not as famous as “Oops” but the top of list to me goes to “Awww s…”