The Japan Playbook

[Spendo02]

@WILD:

knp7765 as Japan I would try to leave at least 1 inf garrison on the islands closest to the Aussie’s so they have to commit more then just a tpt and 1 inf (no easy pickings IMO).

Quoted for effect.

If the Aussies have all their territories and only one NO they are banking 15 IPC/round.  They have to spend it on 1 Inf, 1 Art, 1 TT in order to take an island with 1 Inf on it.  The expense of leaving 3 IPC to force Anzac to spend an entire round of IPC is a good cost/benefit choice.

If not, they can spend 7 IPC on a TT and spend the other 8 on a DD and use one of their starting Inf to retake the island.  Anzac see-sawing an island with you while accumulating 2-3 DD before they have to retake it causes mucho problems for Japan.  Particularly because losing a DEI for Japan that has that NO costs them 8-9 IPC if Japan does not retake it.

[WILD BILL]

Good point continuation Spendo02.

If Japan garrisons the islands, the Aussies have to spend/risk the bulk of their income to get just 4 IPCs for an island plus take away the Japan NO (that Japan will most likely regain on their turn). Japan can take it back on their very next turn (so their income doesn’t miss a beat), and they get to kill off the Anz transport and ground unit(s) rather easily because of carrier planes or bombardment (a luxury the Anz don’t have). The Japanese can generally bully the Anz early on, its when the US gets involved that the Japanese need to make some decisions. With a J1 attack (w/o a Pearl Harbor) the US could have a rather large starting navy sitting off the coast of Queensland (w/naval base) US2 or US3 depending on which way they go.

Another thing to think about is Japan taking Dutch New Guinea early on the Anz NO (think someone mentioned this earlier in the tread). This is a tough call because Japan generally can’t spare a transport, and it has no value. You will make the Anz think about what to do though. Get their own NO back that they may be able to keep for a while, or try to spoil the Japanese NO and collect a little income from the money islands along the way. In the long run this move might keep the Anz off the Japanese DEI NO for a bit because the Anz doesn’t exactly have an over abundance of transports.

[knp7765]

Thanks for all the good points guys. I’ve often thought it was a better idea to go ahead and leave an inf or two on the DEI islands, but I keep using those guys for other attacks because Japan is so far away. Putting a Minor IC on FIC, Malaya or Kwangtung might be a good solution to that, as my transports wouldn’t have to go so far for new men.
WILD BILL, I almost always put a Minor IC on Kiangsu (Shanghai) for that very reason: I can pump out troops/tanks into China and if the Allies take that territory, it won’t be used against me. Sometimes I also put one on Manchuria if I’m going up into Russia or Northern China.
I have usually waited until J3 to declare war on the Western Allies. First, I can collect the FIC NO for a couple of rounds and Second, I can build up enough to usually take all the DEI in one turn, depending on UK and ANZAC blockers of course. I spend the first couple of rounds beating up on China, and perhaps Russia depending on what they do up there. Plus it keeps the US fleet off my back for a little while.
The problem with this I’ve found is the US has a couple of rounds to consolidate it’s fleet, plus some new builds, into a really big fleet that matches or exceeds Japan’s. ANZAC and Inda also get stronger plus THEY get all the money islands. So, instead of taking them from the Dutch relatively easy, I end up having to fight British or ANZAC garrisons not to mention they have collected extra money for a round or two, helping them build up even more.
So, I was thinking an earlier DOW by Japan might throw the Allies a bit off-guard and make it easier for Japan to achieve most of it’s objectives. Even though the US will be at war and collecting big money, their fleet is kind of scattered and will take time to gather up and give me problems. Plus, I may be able to give problems right back with a few extra ship builds of my own.
I guess if the US goes all Pacific, Japan will pretty much be doomed, but then that will probably mean Germany will win in Europe, so Japan will kind of win after all, right?

[WILD BILL]

I would agree with you about the trouble the allies can give to a patient Japan. I do believe the earlier that Japan goes to war the better it is for them. It is harder for the allies to regain what Japan has taken with fewer starting units in the theater (units killed by Japan). Allies face an uphill battle in the Pac, it’s what happens in Europe that I think is the key. What the Germans strat is (knowing what the Japanese may do), and how the US responds. As a whole I feel that aggressive Axis powers is the way to go. Try to keep your foot on the jugular.

[knp7765]

I was wondering if anyone out there playing as Japan has gotten that five island NO for Japan – Midway, Wake, Guam, Gilberts and Solomons? And by getting that NO, I mean when it might actually make a difference to Japan’s income.
I have gotten it a few times, but that is usually not until Japan has all but won on the Pacific side. They will have taken Calcutta, China will be about wiped out, the Russians pushed back, Australia is being threatened and the US Navy hard pressed to stop more Japanese advances. Or if the US decided to go more for Europe, the Pacific fleet may be sunk by this time. So with Japan on top of the world in the Pacific and making 65-75 IPCs per round roughly at this time, what’s another $5 NO really mean to them? I don’t think I have ever accomplished that NO when Japan was still down around 35-45 IPCs per round.
If this is pretty much the experience of other Japan players, I have to ask this question:
What the heck is the meaning of this NO anyway?
It’s nearly impossible to get when Japan could really use an extra $5 per turn and equally as hard to keep for more than a round or two, unless the US and ANZAC are both just playing stupid. Getting it after Japan has crushed everything is meaningless. It’s like “Oh, another $5. Well, just throw it in the pile with the rest.”

[Witt]

This NO does seem a little unnecessary and probably, as you state, underused. Who in the early turns  is going after 5 worthless Islands when the money is in the South? Japan can make better use of its Transports after all.

[WILD BILL]

Latest Japan NO (Alpha+3 or 2nd ed)
� 5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands. Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.

We don’t get it either. The Japanese never go for this NO because it’s not in their best interest income wise (need to protect DEI & Asia). It is also very difficult to keep if they do go out of their way for it.

We liked the old Alpha+2 5/7 islands NO that both Japan & US got (created a lot of island hopping/fighting). I would probably only allow Japan to get it (not the US), because the US NO income was adjusted to France.

Alpha+2 NO
� Collect 5 IPCs per turn if Axis controls 5 of the 7 following islands. Midway, Wake, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Carolines, Solomon Islands and Guam. Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.

4 of the 7 islands are the same as the new NO, it swaps out Gilbert, and makes Marianas, Iwo Jima and Caroline (islands Japan starts with) options too. It gives the Japanese options that aren’t as predictable which is good IMO.

A blend of the 2 NOs could have kept Gilbert in the mix and removed one of the islands Japan starts with like Iwo Jima (because it is closest to Japan, worth 1 IPC and both sides already have reasons to fight for it). We have done this a couple times and because Japan starts with a couple of them they will go for it. It forces some island hopping on both sides. The US will play ball although they don’t get a bonus to stop the Japanese from getting theirs. It allows Japan to go South Pacific, or Mid Pacific which keeps things somewhat unpredictable.

So basically just adding Marianas and Caroline Is to the 2nd ed Japan NO would result in more opportunity for Japan causing more fighting for Pac islands IMO.

Collect 5 IPCs per turn if Axis controls 5 of the 7 following islands. Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilbert, Solomon Is, Marianas, and Caroline Is. Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.

I think there was even a lot of feed back from the community that was scratching their heads when this NO was announced for Alpha+3. They missed the boat on this IMO.

[Spendo02]

I prefer this rule:

Surface Warship Detection
If an enemy moves surface warships through a SZ that contains an island and an opposing enemy has at least one (1) fighter or tactical bomber stationed on an island in that SZ:

A die is cast for each enemy surface warship passing through the SZ by the owner of the fleet.
If no “1’s” are rolled, the fleet continues to move through the SZ unhindered.  
If a “1” is rolled, combat/non-combat movement stops in that SZ.
Each Fighter/Tactical Bomber present rolls a die as a result of the detection.  Die cast that result in 2 or less equates to a hit against the opposing surface warships (3 or less if an AB is present).
Surface ships do not return fire.

In this way, it simulates scouting missions of aircraft around the island and hinders movement through the sea zone if detection occurs.

Although it does little to present an economic bonus, it really will hinder the movement of fleets from NB to NB and provide value to the US putting aircraft on Midway or Wake to keep Japan away from Hawaii or vice versa for Japan and SZ6.  Alternatively, if Japan claims certain strategic islands, it presents the Allies with a decision to either invade those islands or chance losing ships trying to “skip” them to attack Japanese fleets.

[Guest]

I’m not sure of all the ramifications of this house rule, but its kind of neat that it would make Japan want to take Solomon Islands and put planes there to interfere with the shipping from Hawaii to Queensland.  USA and ANZAC would want it back and fast, in early rounds before USA is up to full strength.  So at that stage you could see a real battle for Guadalcanal, something which is conspicuously missing from the game.  In the real war it was crucial that the Marines stopped the Japanese from establishing that airbase.

To make things a bit simpler, how about if you just allow up to 3 fighters/tacs at an airbase on an island or coastal territory to scramble against enemy ships passing through in their Noncombat Phase.  If you scramble, the ships have to STOP and fight it out just like they would do in combat phase.

[Spendo02]

Vance,

I thought about using the AB as a singular decider, however as most islands in the Pacific do not start with one, the investment is significantly large in order to just harass opposing navies (1 AB, at least 1 Ftr is the equivalent of 3 DD).

Of course Midway, Wake, Guam all start with an AB so they would be prime targets.  However, it still ignores so many places of importance in the Pacific and the remaining islands with AB have a NB so they are logical targets for extending influence already.  We don’t want more fighting over the same islands as is.

I do believe that putting a cap on 3 aircraft scrambling would make sense, however you’d think historically if you detected a fleet and you flew in to pop shot a ship or two you’d beat feet quickly afterward and not stick around to let them get aircraft in the air or more guns firing on you.  Hence, the singular round of combat.  Most likely big fleets will have to tip a BB or sacrifice a DD or CR.

Shoot, I’d be happy with just stopping the fleet if detected and no combat occurs, but that does not make much sense as just locating a fleet won’t stop it from moving to its destination, but attacking it for a round possibly would.

As an addendum I’d pose allowing Kamikaze to be used in SZ’s where ships are detected.

[Guest]

Hmmm its a neat idea.  Lots of ramifications though.  You would have to be careful to make it so that it doesn’t have an adverse impact on z110 (e.g. Germans should be able to move to Gibraltar; Allies to Denmark/Norway)

[WILD BILL]

Just an observation, but the Japanese aren’t just going to fly (sacrifice) air to these remote locations like the Solomon’s to stop allied movement. These planes would be sitting ducks for an American or Anz amphib. The US generally has a pretty good supply line going from Hawaii to Queensland, and would love to take out weak Japanese positions along the way, especially if they could pick off a couple fighters w/o ground cover. These air units can’t slow up enemy NCM if the enemy takes them out in the combat phase.

I like the theory of an AB being able to patrol or interfere w/enemy movement in combat or NCM, but not sure it would be worth risking high end units in this way to attempt it. Also IDK if an island w/o an AB should be able to scramble air units, but try this on for size.

Maybe an island w/o an AB can patrol/detect the sz the island is in (one air unit), but an island w/AB can send up to 3 air units total to patrol the sz the island is in, or any  adjacent sz. This would allow the Japanese to beef up strong holds like the Caroline Islands to slow up enemy movement in adjacent sz’s. Could establish new strong holds (AB) like in Marshall islands to disrupt movement through sz 30 (Johnson) or new Britten to extend their patrol reach to sz 49 (Solomon). Still keeping the limit of 3 unit scramble in tact. If you scrambled 1 unit to detect in combat phase, you only have 2 more units available to scramble to defend fleet, or do patrol in NCM.

Patrols would probably lead to modifications of battles. Like say the US fleet is in Hawaii sz and is going to attack the Japanese fleet off Caroline Islands (sz 33). The US lays out its path sz30, sz32, then sz33 attack fleet. The Japanese AB on Caroline island could send out 1 fighter to say sz 32 (Marshall sz) to attempt to spot the US fleet (roll detection dice). If detected when the US hits the Japanese fleet off Caroline the all Japanese ships get +1 in the first round because they knew it was coming. BTW the Japanese could now only scramble 2 ftrs to defend the fleet because one ftr was sent on patrol.

I would still hold any AB to the 3 unit scramble, but if it didn’t use up all its scrambling ability in the enemy combat phase, then allow it to disrupt enemy NCM in some way TBD. This would be a major change to the mechanics of the game, so can’t see it adopted into the mainstream game, but would be a cool house rule to test out.

Like Vance said there are many ramifications depending on how far you want to take it. Maybe any operational AB has the ability to patrol its own sz and neighboring sz’s. You don’t actually send out a plane, the AB has one built in patrol craft per enemy turn used during either CM or NCM (just roll detection dice), how it effects enemy TBD.

[knp7765]

Hey guys, I tried out a J1 attack this weekend. I must say there were surprising results. The US wasn’t really in a position to attack me for a couple of rounds but they did build up a massive fleet around Hawaii. I dusted off the UK and ANZAC navies pretty quickly and did fairly well in China for the first 2 or 3 rounds.
One thing I did which I realize now was a mistake was trying to go after Australia rather early. After I killed the Aussie and British ships, I thought I saw a chance to sneak up and take out ANZAC quickly. When I moved 3 transports to the Carolines, ANZAC simply turtled up on NSW and I realized I didn’t have enough to win that fight. Plus, I also knew the US fleet would pounce on my fleet and I would be stuck with almost no ships left in the water.
This made me late in getting the DEI. I got them all on Round 4, but it would have been sooner if I hadn’t went after Sydney.
China started to get kind of big with a little British help and I started to run into trouble on the mainland. At one point, the Chinese managed to push me back to where I just had Manchuria, Kiangsu and Kwangtung. However, their lines were thin, I still had most of my planes and minor ICs on Kwangtung and Kiangsu started churning out tanks and mechs. So I’m beating them back now.
I managed to take India, which ended British presence in the area, so now I’m beating back China and have all SE Asia.
The Russians left 9 men on Amur and headed everything else towards Moscow. I waited 4 rounds, enough time for the others to be far away, and attacked Amur. Of course, this gave Russia 6 extra men in Mongolia, but I have managed to eliminate them all now.
The US and Japanese have had 3 big naval battles and now both of us are short of warships in the Pacific. We both have to sit back, lick our wounds and build up.
Meanwhile, Germany captured London and has a fair sized navy, enough to give the US headaches in the Atlantic. The US has a large land force in N Africa but all their ships were sunk by German and Italian ships. Operation Barbarossa started out well, but when Germany turned it’s attention to England and the Atlantic, the Russian front stalled and Russia started taking back territory. They actually retook Leningrad and the Ukraine and are close to German territory. Germany has to start all over again building up a new attack force to go back into Russia. Japan has several Far Eastern Soviet territories but very little troops up there. Luckily, Russia doesn’t have much up there either.
I think with England out of the game now, we will see an Axis victory, although the US is still rich and strong and Russia is doing pretty well too.

[knp7765]

By the way, I have a quick question about convoy raiding in regards to NOs. Convoy raiding only affects the IPC worth of the territory itself, not an NO that is attached to that territory, right?
To be specific, I was wondering about the Philippines. The Philippines themself is worth 2 IPCs. The US control of the Philippines is worth an additional 5 IPCs NO. So, overall the Philippines is worth 7 IPCs to the US.
The US recently retook the Philippines but the Japanese sank their navy there and currently has 2 cruisers and a carrier with a fighter and a tac on it. Now even though the Japanese fleet has the potential of convoy raiding 6 IPCs, since the Philippines territory is only 2 IPCs, that is all they can convoy raid, correct? The 5 IPC NO that the US gets for controlling the Philippines is not affected by convoy raiding, correct?
I am pretty sure an NO is not affected by convoy raiding so that’s how we played it. I just thought I would ask to make sure.

[Witt]

Hi Knp.  You are right in that you can only tske 2 IPCs from the US for the Philippines.
Game  sounds fun.

[WILD BILL]

Sounds like a great game with a lot of navy battles on both sides of the globe. Will be tuned in to see how it ends up.

[Witt]

@Knp: what did you do with your 2 SZ6 Carriers on J1?

I wonder how much like suicide, attacking Pearl with 4 Air and a Sub and DD, really is?
Wake looks a safe place to park them. But I think it would then be necessary to send an AP to safeguard the Island too. (Seems a waste.)  That would mean only one AP attacking the Philippines with2 Air. Risky!  I was planning to send the third AP to Hong Kong.
My first reaction is always to avoid openly moving towards my greatest threat: the US.
I suppose it would place me far away from the money Islands too.
Isn’t planning war a headache!

[knp7765]

Hey Wittmann,
Let’s see, at first my 2 SZ 6 carriers went with the bulk of the fleet to the Carolines in that aborted attempt to take out ANZAC. Then one went back to stay in SZ 6 for most of this game while the other went south to help in taking the DEI, Malaya and Philippines. I actually lost the SZ 6 carrier in one of the big US naval attacks. One carrier helped to take India.
I have actually been very successful in using my other two carriers in foiling Allied plans – either in tempting Allied ships into a trap where I ended up smashing them OR in presenting a somewhat obvious looking trap so the Allies end up staying away and thus out of my business allowing me to carry out other plans.
So far, Japan and USA have rebuilt substantial fleets, although now Japan is actually making more than the US so they are in the lead for a change. The Axis is very much in the lead and I think the game will be over soon, although they have not gained the Victory Cities on either map yet – 7 in Europe and 5 in Pacific.  Allies are being stubborn.
While German navy is actually weaker than US navy, US is having trouble gaining any traction in Atlantic trying to match Japanese builds. Japan is threatening ANZAC again and in much better position this time. Germany is building up strong against Russia and the Soviets are losing ground, their counter-offensive having run out of steam. Italy is doing very well. They have all Africa and Middle East and are threatening Russia from the south. They finally erased all US presence in the Med and Africa and are even building warships to try and aid the German navy in the Atlantic.
Allies are playing like they are Axis – fighting to the bitter end. Stalin is in underground bunker “believing” that war is going good for Russia. He is close to giving his girlfriend a cyanide pill.

[Witt]

Allies are playing like they are Axis – fighting to the bitter end. Stalin is in underground bunker “believing” that war is going good for Russia. He is close to giving his girlfriend a cyanide pill.    I love history’s what ifs!

Thanks for the breakdown. I have practiced my anticipated moves on my wife(and no she wasn’t tied up, this time) and like how end of G1 looks.
Have devised a J1 too, but need to see how it would look a turn or two later.
I know victory is only necessary on one map and doing a J1 would bring the US crashing in on the Europe map earlier than usual for me, but I feel angered and am decided on that course.
Will make it a different game from the others we have played too.

[knp7765]

Well, the final result was indeed an Axis victory. It took 12 rounds, although the US conceded defeat at the beginning of their turn on round 12. They were the only Ally left except for 1 British Inf & artillery in Quebec, 1 Soviet sub in SZ 114 and 1 ANZAC Inf on New Zealand. China and France were both extinct.
The US had a powerful navy in SZ 101 and a smallish force in SZ 10 – 1 fully loaded carrier + 5 DD. They had 5 transports worth of men, art and tanks in E US, but could never outstretch the German navy to liberate London. Every time the US made a warship purchase, the Germans matched it so a stalemate developed.
Italy captured Stalingrad on round 11, which was the 8th VC on the Europe board.
Germany captured Moscow on round 12, which made 9 VCs on the Europe board.
Japan captured Sydney on round 12, which was VC #6 on the Pacific board.
By this time, Germany was at 102 IPCs, Japan roughly 112 IPCs and Italy had 67 IPCs. These are territory plus NO incomes. Just territories would be Germany = 69, Japan = 90 and Italy = 46. The US had 72 IPCs, but I’m sure that would be cut down quite a bit in another round or two since all Axis had nothing to do but go after the US. While the naval battles in SZ 101 and SZ 10 would have been huge, by this time the end result would have been the ultimate falling of the US. It might have taken a further 5-6 rounds, but the result would be doom for all freedom loving peoples. So I think our US player was right to concede.
I think my J1 attack made a lot of difference here, plus the G1 Barbarossa. I think it threw our Allied players off balance since Japan usually waits until J3 or J4. Also, our US player kind of fell into the mistake of trying to support action on both theaters. While she was able to set some Axis plans back here and there, it wasn’t enough to make really decisive blows on either side and in both cases, Japan and Germany were able to recover from the setbacks, whereas the Allies weren’t really able to recover from setbacks they experienced. The most dangerous one was Russia’s counter-attack of Barbarossa. They really built up a lot of steam but just didn’t quite get far enough before the Germans rebounded after taking London.
I have always thought the best Allied plans involve USA committing mostly to one side or the other, with just enough to keep the other side in check. Usually, a large US involvement in Europe can really put the hurt on Germany and Italy if they can keep just enough navy to harass Japan in the Pacific so they don’t grow too big. A large US involvement against Japan will usually, if done right, end up shrinking Japan to almost nothing, cornering them on Japan, then they can go over to invade Europe and stop Germany hopefully before Moscow falls.