Japan's First Move

[Guest]

So few pieces BY ROUND 4.

You see, if you split Japan’s forces, sending their heavy navy against what essentially are non-important targets at Hawaii, then those forces can’t be used elsewhere doing things like increasing your IPC’s.

So you attack Hawaii and leave your battleships in Hawaii waters with you BEST defense (the carrier and fighters) sitting in anaother sea zone?  Great!  See that Western US fighter, that battleship, that cannon-fodder transport?  A 4, a 3, and fodder against 2 4’s.  GLUB!  That of course is if I even worry about those two out-of-position battleships.  They can’t carry troops, they can’t invade anywhere, and your transports are in the sea of Japan WITHOUT ESCORTS.  See those allied fighters?  The Russian one in Yakut?  The UK in India that can reach and land in Manchuria?  The US in China?

That also means you are going to be trying to take back Manchuria with NO BB and with less fighter support:  that means more Japan forces dead in the invasion than otherwise would have happened.  It also leaves your carrier-based fighters out of position for use against other Continental targets.

Not to mention, in an “average” counter roll to your initial Hawaii attack, you are going to lose 2 pieces, not 1, and about half the time you will lose 3 pieces.  To leave 2 Battleships at Hawaii, what are you losing besides your sub?  Fighters?  The Bomber?  the US loses 38 IPC’s worth of Navy in the first strike, you lose 32 IPC’s worth of airpower and a navy (2 figs and a sub).

The REASON you will be without pieces in just a few rounds is simple:  you won’t have any continental territories left.  Manchuria will be taken AGAIN by Russia against such a paltry invasion force as you listed it; US takes Kwangtung with 1 INF for free.  And a combined UK and US assault on Indochina using Australian infantry (you ignored the India transport), Indian forces, and maybe some extra figthers flown down from Russia that were sent in for extra defense on UK 1.  If by some chance they don;t take it, the US will on their next move; and all you can do to counter it is fly in fighters as sacrifice because your transport navy was unguarded and is now on the bottom of the ocean.

So by the end of round 2, Japan is MINUS 9, for a whopping income of 16, and no transport ships to go get anymore IPC’s.

Then UK takes targets of opportunity like the empty Phillipines, since they still have a transport and you don’t; or maybe you start chasing that transport around Japan’s islands  with your navy… even MORE out of position.

[Jermofoot]

Whoa ncscswitch, you’re jumping to conclusions.  I don’t think you are accounting for everything, and many things are exaggerated, in regards to your last post.

I’ve not had the chances to try to many variations on Japan’s opening move, but I usually move the majority of my fleet to knock out the Hawaiian navy.  I’ve never lost a piece doing so - although I understand googie7745 may not be sending his entire fleet.  I find that it’s in the best interest of the Axis to remove the US’s navy from the start - rather than allowing them to concentrate, move to an offensive, and start bugging Germany.  In my experience, Japan wins the day by distracting the US (through a navy and landings in Alaska/Mexico), applying incessant and increasing pressure on Russia, and picking off UK’s remote territories.  I’ve thought of splitting my fleet at the beginning, but I’ve gone through many games where I’ve held off the US for round after round with my initial setup navy.

I’d anticipate buying more transports as Japan, and maybe not the fighter just yet.  I like the thought of enticing the U.S. into attacking my fleet, but the truth is, if you use your fleet for an offense on the Asian mainland, then you won’t have a concentrated fleet to meet the U.S.'s.  You have to make a choice from the start, and I’d say that sinking the U.S. fleet has priority.  Even without naval support, there aren’t enough Allied forces in SE Asia to counter Japan for any length of time, unless Russia can send some troops down or UK/US can place an IC.

How do you usually operate Japan’s opening move?  Of course part of that depends on the other three countries prior to Japan’s turn….

Also, how exactly do you defeat the Axis in four rounds?  I say it can’t be done, except against an inexperienced player and luck on your side.

[Guest]

See my posts elsewhere regarding Japan’s openning move and how to use the Japan Navy to both threaten the US and provide for ongoing assault against UK and especially RUSSIA.

Unless you plan a direct assault on USA, IGNORE THEM as Japan (except for China and Sinkiang).  That Pacific fleet is of no real value for the first 3-4 turns in Europe, and if USA does a full scale pull-out of the Pacfici, then you grab Panama, Hawaii, Brazil, etc. (as I posted elsewhere).

But seriously, if you attack Hawaii fleet just to kill Navy, you will get the same result as Japan did in the actual war… DEFEAT.

[Linkon]

@googie7745:

Japan’s first turn should consist of:

Japan must attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor with everything they have. Use your sub, your battleships, and your bomber. Also, use the fighter on your carrier and your Japanese fighter.
You will probably take the zone with 2 battleships, land your bomber in Japan, and your fighter(s) on your carrier, to be moved to the Wake Island sea zone. Also, attack Manchuria (held by the Soviets) with your two infantry from Kwangtung, your tank from Japan, your infantry from the Phillipines, and your fighter from Burma. You will win with about two infantry and one tank. Fly your fighter back to Burma.

Buy a tank, a fighter, and a transport.

Traditional veteran lore for Jpn calls for the staging of a “major mainland expansion”  For this Jpn will need 4-5 trns.  This follows a 3 inf, 2 trn purchase on J1.

The Carrier should join in the Pearl attack.  When the fighters land on the AC in the Haw SZ after the battle, those ftrs will protect the rest of your fleet.  Spitting your fleet up will break it up into weak targets.  A & A allows unlimited stacking.  In theory, a stack of remaining Jpn ships, assuming the US sinks the sub, will be 2 BB, AC, + 2 ftr.  If that same fleet were to be split into different sea zones for each major ship, the enemy could sink each piecemeal, with your defending forces having only chances to hit, but no guarantees.  The AC + 2 ftrs will nearly guarantee a single hit on defense.  But for the same amount of enemy units will suffer about 3 (average dice) hits after a single round of combat against the combined fleet.  Not only that, some of your forces may even survive to fight another round or two, inflicting further losses on the enemy.  The individual BB’s in the split fleet example would most likely get only a single casualty shot as long as the enemy force got a single hit in the initial combat roll.

I would also advise that the Jpn ftr be used on a mainland Asia attack, such as China.  Use the Phil ftr to attack the US Navy in the Haw SZ.

[Guest]

Those who repeat the failures of history, are doomed to failure themselves.

Pearl Harbor lead to the defeat of Japan.

It worked that way in 1942, it works that way in the game.

Go ahead, take me on at Pearl.  Sink my carrier and my sub.

You WILL lose your fleet on US1.  And then I’ll give Japan a LOT more to worry about than a few Russia INF…

You see, there is an alternate strategy to defeat the Axis besides killing Germany fast…  And if you call me out in the Pacific, I just MIGHT be pursuaded to go ahead and take on that no-transport fleet that can’t be used to attack the US and DECIMATE Japan’s naval power on round 1.  Not sure if I would bother though, sans transports, that fleet means NOTHING to the US; except that all of your heavy navy is nowhere near any transport fleet you might be building…

And then of course, you would not be able to get forces to Asia (see elsewhere about the 6 fighters available to sink any unguarded transport fleet), and the US, Britain and Russia can take 9 IPC’s from Japan in short order, then procced to kick Japan’s ass back to an income of 8 with an island full of INF, but no means to go anywhere or attack anything.

Meanwhile, how is Germany fareing with Russia fighting only on ONE front, and UK helping out?

Oh sports fans, things don;t look good for the Axis with Japan fighting battles and gaining no money…

[Linkon]

I only commented on the Haw SZ battle in the original post as I saw it had obvious faults.

Of course there should be a major push on the mainland.  Jpn still has 2 trn, 2-3 ftr, the bmr if it is not used to sink the US navy, and all surviving mainland inf.

The bmr can boost confidence of victory in Haw in case of bad dice.  However, it may be overkill there and better used for combat on the mainland.

[aaFiendish]

@ncscswitch:

Pearl Harbor lead to the defeat of Japan.

It worked that way in 1942, it works that way in the game.

Pearl Harbor was very successful actually. It’s the battle of midway that really hurt. Don’t go to midway as japan. :)

History isn’t very well replicated in this game in any event. Taking out the fleet in hawaii really isn’t all that bad a move, imo, but if the allies went hard into asia I am usually pressed to ignore them.

[Jermofoot]

I’d love to see alternative strategy that is viable for any of the nations, but I think that using Japan’s fleet to subdue the continent before owning the Pacific gives a small reward now for larger problems later.  It could work, but I believe most of the success would be attributed to luck - which happens from time to time.

First, removing America from the Pacific usually spurs the American to focus more on Japan than Germany. There may not be a transport in the fleet sitting off the coast of Western America, but a transport dropped by Japan can meet with them for an Amphibious assault on Alaska (I’ve done it).  Attacking the Hawaiian fleet first off is almost standard because it’s stupid NOT to do.  It is not repeating past mistakes;  the last two games that I’ve played as Japan I’ve successfully executed the maneuver, went on to take Moscow (in the second game I took Moscow AND Eastern USA on the same turn - collecting 118 IPCs that round), and NEVER added another offensive ship to my attacking fleet.  If I attack the Hawaiian fleet on turn 1 in this manner, you will not sink the Japanese fleet on US1, or even US2 for that matter.

Second, as already stated, there’s also an offensive on southeast Asia, which puts the limited Allied presence on the defensive.  Unless Russia and UK got aggressive and lucky, I don’t think much is going to happen, and even then the Allied push is only temporarily.  A large vacuum is created, leaving gaps for Japanese tanks to blitz through.

Third, while the Japanese transports may be less defended, they are not simply fodder.  There aren’t 6 Allied fighters in the area to take down transports.  Those that do exist are on the defensive and will be gone in the next turn or two, not to mention can’t fly enough spaces without sacrificing themselves for a transport - a stupid trade, in most cases.

Anyway, I like your thinking, I just believe a few rounds of trying this with actual seasoned gamers will change your perception, however slightly.  Honestly, the key to the game is Japan - and the Allies have limited offensive capabilities at the start of the game to contend with them.  There is one possibility I’ve examined as the Allies, but it needs more scrutiny and takes some luck and a lot of sacrifice.  Maybe I’ll share it and see what you think.

[Jermofoot]

@Soon_U_Die:

1. Pearl Heavy - Sub, AC, 2 or 3 Ftrs, Bomber, both BBs ––pretty much guaranteed victory.

2. Pearl Heavy & Amphibious assault - the quintessential full-scale pummelling.  Send everything in as per Pearl Heavy but include a tranny (1 Inf Japan/1 Inf Wake) and 1 of the Ftrs (the one on the AC) against the island itself.  As long as 1 Inf takes Hawaii, you can pick up another from an island an J2 and amphib Australia on J2…or take NZ for free.  Gives you a weak feint on J2 against WUSA or west coast, possibly slowing a piece or two down for a turn against Deutschland.

3. Pearl Lite - often my preferred solution.

#1 would be my preferred attack, but I usually don’t include the bomber.  Sometimes only two fighters.

#2 I’ve never really done.  Sometimes I’ll take it later on, but I was going to add that I prefer to take New Zealand BEFORE I assault Australia.  The trick is that while you get an easy IPC, most people would assume you’ll assault Australia next turn - you could, and be sure to send Battleships with the transport.  While they think that, I land in Mexico instead.  It’s hard to tell, but a fleet in NZ waters CAN land in Mexico in one round.  Most people overlook it and I exploit that.

#3 Unless I had an interesting Asian assault utilizing some of the other ships, I wouldn’t go lite.  Maybe once I tried it I might change my mind, but I prefer to ensure utter destruction with minimal loss.  Mutual damage isn’t desirable to me, especially in the beginning of the game.

[aaFiendish]

@Jermofoot:

It is not repeating past mistakes;  the last two games that I’ve played as Japan I’ve successfully executed the maneuver, went on to take Moscow (in the second game I took Moscow AND Eastern USA on the same turn - collecting 118 IPCs that round), and NEVER added another offensive ship to my attacking fleet.  If I attack the Hawaiian fleet on turn 1 in this manner, you will not sink the Japanese fleet on US1, or even US2 for that matter.

Anyway, I like your thinking, I just believe a few rounds of trying this with actual seasoned gamers will change your perception, however slightly.

I am sorry, but you taking moscow and eastern on the same turn and you playing with actual seasoned gamers is not compatible. Your assertion that attacking pearl will cause the US to be more focused on Japan is also flawed. I have no problems with japan in the pacific, let them come. If you perform weakly in pearl, I’ll attack you, otherwise I’ll just ignore you.

I am not saying that a move on pearl is good, I’ll do it most of the time. But your assumption that it is mandatory and basically has no negative aspects to it I find incorrect. The “vacuum” that you are causing in asia might only be temporary, but temporary is quite good enough. 1 round of playtime for the allies is marvelous. Sure it’s not like you can use most of those in the first round, but you cannot use those fighters in the second round which I think is very beneficial.

[cystic crypt]

OK - i’m entering the fray late, having read only a few posts, and with some wine under my belt (and sleep deprived too . . .) still here we go.
@googie7745:

Japan’s first turn should consist of:
Japan must attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor with everything they have. Use your sub, your battleships, and your bomber. Also, use the fighter on your carrier and your Japanese fighter.
You will probably take the zone with 2 battleships, land your bomber in Japan, and your fighter(s) on your carrier, to be moved to the Wake Island sea zone. Also, attack Manchuria (held by the Soviets) with your two infantry from Kwangtung, your tank from Japan, your infantry from the Phillipines, and your fighter from Burma. You will win with about two infantry and one tank. Fly your fighter back to Burma.
Buy a tank, a fighter, and a transport.

1. you will DEFINITELY take the zone - the question is “what is useful?”  For me, ftrs are MUCH more useful than BB’s - especially as Japan.  The only exception being if you are planning to harasss AUS or ALA and wish the pre-emptive bombing ability.
2. Why move to Wake Island sz?  What would you do from there?  Either stick with Hawaii sz - where you can menace ALA, MEX or WEU, or else move towards Asia or Aus.
3. I usually play RR and don’t lose MAN, however you can bring an inf from PHI and JP there with help from some mainland ftrs.  Otherwise hit SFE.

Now this depends on what GERMANY is up to.  I am thinking that if they are going power-Africa, then maybe aim a little more southernly - i.e. India and CHI/SIN.  True - if MAN is held by Russia this is less palatable, but still - it is equal ipcs.

SUD - i respect the crap out of you as i think you are likely the best player on the board.  Having said this . . .

1. Pearl Heavy - Sub, AC, 2 or 3 Ftrs, Bomber, both BBs ––pretty much guaranteed victory.  Likely strong defense against counter.  Could turn to disaster if US hits 3 on defense and then counters on their turn.  Risk of not getting 3 round 1 hits and having the US kill the AC & Ftr and retreat the sub…only to attack your undefended trannies with the sub in Japan sea zone on her turn.

if one does not do this, there is a good chance that the US will finish off your pac forces that did NOT join in here.  Still i do this maybe 50-60% of the time.

2. Pearl Heavy & Amphibious assault - the quintessential full-scale pummelling.  Send everything in as per Pearl Heavy but include a tranny (1 Inf Japan/1 Inf Wake) and 1 of the Ftrs (the one on the AC) against the island itself.  Both battles pretty much guaranteed.  Best defense against counter, since you will have an extra piece (tranny) and a US Ftr cannot get there (no where to land).  Gives you an IPC for Hawaii and gives you that for likely the whole game and possible base for aircampaign against WUSA (eg. Heavies) much later in game.  As long as 1 Inf takes Hawaii, you can pick up another from an island an J2 and amphib Australia on J2…or take NZ for free.  Gives you a weak feint on J2 against WUSA or west coast, possibly slowing a piece or two down for a turn against Deutschland.  Obviously it slows you 2 Inf in Asia on J1.  Further increases risk if US sub escapes, since you will have fewer trannies to defend Japan SZ with against that sub.

i love this option for all of the reasons you state.  I like it also 'czu you can keep pressure on the US - as you stated - keeping less pressure on GER.  You pop ALA every once in a while, and the US gets even more paranoid . . .  :wink:

3. Pearl Lite - often my preferred solution.  Several mixes available, most common I use is sub, bomber, 1 BB (possibly a Ftr as well).  Gives you a lighter attack, but still decent first round assault.  Often a battle of mutual destruction.  Goal is to kill at least the AC or Ftr, preferably both (obviously).  I consider one BB to be a throw away as I only need 2 capital ships for fleet defence the rest of the game.  My order of loss is sub first, BB second, bomber last.  I don’t want the Allies to have an extra capital ship for free, I don’t want any thought of a US fleet being built, and I can afford the pieces.  Usually none of these pieces is really necessary on J1 in Asia.  Odds are actually pretty good since you only need 2 hits to accomplish the objective and as long as the defence doesn’t get 3 hits it isn’t a disaster.  You can often get yer 2 hits and retreat, or all 3 hits and still get away with keeping your bomber.  Obvious risk is if you wiff on rd1 and the defence smokes you.  Could be bad, real bad.  But odds are pretty good that it will be a toss-up or better (for Japan).  You can still consolidate all the rest of your fleet so their is no risk to Japan SZ on Rd1.  If there is no UK AC and/or the situation is those US Ftrs aren’t required and can counter–-then I’ll choose this option.

:|
go big or go home.  Seriously - if you do this, you will lose all of these pieces left here, possibly with a US ship to roam, no?

[221B Baker Street]

I don’t like the idea of a full US Navy roaming the Pacific and would generally want to strike on J1 (while the US navy is split apart).

However, you could make a decent case that Japan could simply ignore the US in the Pacific and do something else with their fleet on J1 (Australia anyone?) If Japan is careful, the US cannot do any real damage, but Japan might suceed in drawing the US away from Germany by leaving their Pacific fleet alone.

[DarthMaximus]

I will hit Pearl about 90-95% of the time on J1.  There is no good reason to let the US ships live.

This of course turns into a 100% if UK buys a carrier on UK1, which negates the possibility of a US counter.

I have to assume at the very least an RR game, otherwise it really doesn’t matter because the allies are going to win a straight up game about 95% of the time anyway.

I’ll hit with 2 ftrs, 2bb’s, 1 sub, 1 bom, 1 ac.  And I’ll lose the sub and 1 bb (or 1 ftr).

I’ll also only attack Chi (unless SFE and/or Ind is mt)

And about 90% of the time I buy either 3 inf and 2 trns or 3 trns.

[DarthMaximus]

SUD, what are your thoughts on Low Luck?  I just mean do you play it.

Anyway, I’d do Pearl Lite (a lot) in that since you’re guaranteed 2 hits for sure and the US can only get 1-2 hits.

[cystic crypt]

Ok SUD, point (nearly taken).
In answer to your questions:

1. yes
2. maybe - i’d have to visualize the scenario better
3. yes
4. probably not. Â

questions for you:

1. what are you doing with the units you are not throwing into Pearl?  In RR you do not need a capital ship for the coast (even SFE does not require it usually).
2. How necessary is it to nail that Pearl fleet?  I am changing gears here, i realize.  I do not see much need for the jp sub, nor do i REALLY need those jp bb’s.  Still does the US ever really get into JP’s face enough even if they are left alone?

[DarthMaximus]

@Soon_U_Die:

DM,

On Low Luck….I hate it :)  Seriously, it bores me to death.  I understand why people like it and why they like it.Â

SUD<----Picturing people hammering the keyboard when they come up short on a full luck game.

But, I find it boring and predictable.  I am actually in the camp that thinks at a high level of play it is too limiting, too restrictive, and not at all more skillful…rather less skillful.  I hate that you can use 5 Ftrs, Bomber, 1 Inf vs 3 Inf and not risk losing more than the one attacking Inf.  I don’t think that makes you more skillful…I think it makes you less skillful because you never have to overcome adversity or unpredictability.

The game is already very static/predictable IMO.  Making it more so…is just a snooze fest, IMO.  After all this time, I still just like playing the game having fun.  I’d rather have a beer and laugh with my opponents when all 5 attacking Ftrs get shot down by AA, then grip the board in some serious death grip complaining about luck and the dice.  It is just a game after all.  And I picture the serious Low Luckers as serious nerds who take this way too seriously.  Just MO so no one should get their knickers in a twist :)

But, whatever floats your boat.  And for a change of pace, sure.Â

But it’s not for me.  I’d rather hang wallpaper.

SUD

I totally agree.  From what I’ve played of it, it is far too predictiblable.

I like dealing with “worst case” scenerios and not knowing the outcome of battles.

I don’t like the idea of “guarenteed” hits, it definitely takes something away.

That being said, I will play it if someone insists or for a change of pace, and I know certain players swear by it so I play it if I play someone who only plays LL.

[madscientist]

What I do as Japan has of course to do with what the Russian and British players did.  If both Russia attacked Manchuria AND the UK attacked Kwangtung, then Japan is definitely disadvantaged at first. I have seen this strategy before. I have heard it called “the crippling of Japan”. In this case I attack Manchuria back with the trn, 2 inf, the ftr and the bomber from Japan (chances are Russia only took it with 2 or 3 units). Note that if UK attacked Kwangtung then India is either free or it only has 1 ftr defending it. If there is 1 ftr, I attack with the trn and 2 inf from the Phillipines and the ftr from Burma. If the ftr is not in India, then I use only the two inf from the Phillipines. Then I attack Kwangtung with 1-2 inf from Burma and the ftr from the Phillipines (note that this ftr can reach a battle on the mainland if Kwangtung was taken) and possibly the ftr from Burma.

That leaves the BB and the ftr from the Caroline Is. and the BB from Japan and the sub from the Soloman Is. the attack Pearl, with suitable results. I move the AC to the sea of Japan and land the ftr (I lose it last in the Pearl battle) on it to protect trns in the Japan SZ.

If the UK and Russia did not attack (or if you are playing RR), there are more Japanese land units for taking things like China and SFE.

Oh, ya. I build 2 trn and 3 inf, so 4 inf and 1 tank can be transported to manchuria right away on the next turn.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[madscientist]

Note that, using this strategy against the opening UK and Russian attacks, that Japan collects its full IPC’s + 3 for India at the end of the turn.

[cystic crypt]

@madscientist:

Note that, using this strategy against the opening UK and Russian attacks, that Japan collects its full IPC’s + 3 for India at the end of the turn.

which is not nearly enough IMO.

[221B Baker Street]

India is either free or it only has 1 ftr defending it. If there is 1 ftr, I attack with the trn and 2 inf from the Phillipines and the ftr from Burma. If the ftr is not in India, then I use only the two inf from the Phillipines. Then I attack Kwangtung with 1-2 inf from Burma and the ftr from the Phillipines (note that this ftr can reach a battle on the mainland if Kwangtung was taken) and possibly the ftr from Burma.

A problem with this is that the Jap transport is left unprotected.  An allied bomber or fighter will easily destroy this - and Japan cannot afford to lose transports early.  Even if the transport survives, it is out of position to send further troops to the Asia mainland, costing the Axis valuable time (which they do not have).