Japan is too strong?

[Tolstoj]

Indeed, I to like to have an open debate without ‘tone’ or disrespect. I want to learn from others, and of course I think I am right sometimes, I have also learnt from this discussion. Next time I play the allies, I will certainly have a different approach. I will try to involve the Russians more and perhaps coordinate in what turn the allies should put pressure on Japan collectively.

But still think Japan is to strong! ;)

Fleet
The allies can buy, but not enough. You can only have a maximum of 19 units at Queensland in US4 (if you buy 3 carriers in US1). Japan has around 35 at that time (and can buy more, the US can’t). And you’re welcome to try to take the islands (which indeed always happens), but Japan not only has the advantage of a large unified force, it is also better situated to take the islands back. So in fact the allies lose more units then Japan in this manner. But the reward is more IPC’s, so we agree that they should try.

Russia/China
Japan has 19 air units. 4 are used in attack on Yunnan in J1 and 3 in Hunan. That leaves 12 planes, plus the bombers which can reach amur from Kwangsi… . 6 planes are used at sea, so Japan has 8 left on Jehol. Japan has 11 landunits on Manchuria plus Korea, and 5 transports in J2. Must be enough.

If you don’t attack in R2, Japan has to re-arrange of course. But from Ahnwe it can reach the whole of China and Manchuria (and Burma). So contrary to what you say the Japanese airforce can threaten northern China and Manchuria at the same time.

Germany would love Russia to invest 4 extra units in China by the way (Szechwan). And again from Ahnwe the Japanese airforce can indeed be a threat to those units. In fact if you don’t put the 18 Russian units forward in Manchuria the forces in Szechwan will all be destroyed in J3…

Still I don’t see how you are going to safe China???

IPC
My assumption is that if Japan takes the treasure islands one time, they have around 70 IPC. If they do they can buy as many ships as the Americans, and the US has to divert power to Europe. Japan also has the advantage of airpower (I like to drop this argument as often as I can :p), of inner lines and they are closer to the islands then the US homebase is.

[taamvan]

Mr. Tolstoi,

Can’t really contradict you, as the things you say are correct–Japan gets the income, it gets the air, it gets the flexibility.

The only blatantant weakness it has are

1. limited ground (cannon-fodder) on the continent, which it can address with MICs to the detriment of its fleet assets
2. the moment it has to grab for the big cookie jar (DEI, spice islands, Malaya) is the only chance you have to split him in half.

In agreement with the poster above, you cant just threaten SZ 6, you have to be ready to attack it at the only opportunity you will have (usually J4-J6) when he splits his fleet.

If japan hangs out at Carolines, you cant sit off Queensland.
If japan hangs out at the Philippines, it is the southernmost point he can be and still return to SZ 6 defense
If japan hangs out in SZ 6, he isn’t accomplishing anything
If japan hangs out in Manchuria, he can’t kill China
If japan goes for Malaya, the Spice Islands, Australia, Bombay etc, he cannot help SZ 6

This set of assumptions reveals that the only positional moment to attack him will be the one where he has to grab for his true objective.    That battle will be at a odds disadvantage to the allies, but you have to take it.

This is also my (mild) objection to the discussion of how to speed the game up by having Germany and Japan go at the same time–seems like a good idea until you recognize that certain G1 moves (sea lion) will not be compatible with a certain Japan move (attacking Russia)…and Russia has to ‘read’ this intention…

People often opine that Russia should not put all 18 men on Amur, but this battle is very risky for Japan and I have seen it blow Japan’s strategy before.  I think that it is a “tell” to move all the pieces to Buryatia facing westward…Japan must have some doubt that you will be leaving permanently and not re-forming up in Amur/novosibirisk.  Japan can’t lose Manchuria and that’s the biggest difference between 1940 Pac and 1940 Global.

[Tolstoj]

This is all clear language Mr. Taamvan, thank you.

One question, what do you ean by:

This set of assumptions reveals that the only positional moment to attack him will be the one where he has to grab for his true objective. That battle will be at a odds disadvantage to the allies, but you have to take it.

[Tolstoj]

Fist of all Japans has 4 destroyers to start with, and the US should buy 3 carriers in US1. (I never buy battleships). Japan has two advantages: they buy ships nearer to homebase and they are first.

J2 Japan buys a carrier (or 2 destroyers) and 2 subs.
J3 Japan buys a carrier and 2 subs.

Japanese navy: 5 carriers 2 bb 2 ca 4 destroyers 6 subs = 29 units + airsupport. And may I remind you that Japan isn’t the one who’s on the attack!

[Kreuzfeld]

I dont know if you are assuming a J1 or not.  If I assume that you do a J3 attack

2 CV, 1 BB, 2 CR, 3 DD and 2 sub
If us Buy 3 CV on US1 and 3CV on us2, they will end up with
8 CV, 1 BB, 2 CR, 3 DD and 2 subs for a total of 32 units that can reach queensland by US5

You can also go this way:
on US1 buy 7 subs and 1 DD
US2 buy 3 Carriers. You now have
5 CV, 1 BB, 2 Cr, 4DD and 9 subs for a total of 29 units + anzak that can reach queensland on US4 (I assume anzak and uk helps with filling up the US carriers)
The subs you build on US1 can actually go from the east coast to hawaii by US3.

[Tolstoj]

No they are not weak on land: they defeat China in J4/J5. Russia will have to deal with Germnay sooner or later and India is reduces to 5-7 IPC after R3/R4…

[WILD BILL]

I have to say it’s been a while since I’ve seen a J3 attack. J1 (w/G2 attack on Russia) is just too good to pass up but to each his own.

As for the Russians if they keep all 20 units together in Bury, yea that is a concern for the Japanese and they will have to hold some units back to deal with them if/when they come forward. It will make a difference because it ties down those slow moving Japanese ground forces, and puts them out of position. If the Russians do invade Manchu the Japanese would have to take them out I think, but it will cost them a lot of ground units and a couple planes, plus it weakens them in other areas. It could be interesting if the Japanese (seeing what Russia did) decided to stack Manchu w/air cover J1 and build an IC (now Russia is kinda screwed). Plus I’ll have to say that the Germans are loving that, because the first six units would be a round late upon arrival to Moscow if the stack does decide to head east. Maybe the Axis plan has now changed, and Russia has just sealed its fate (maybe it was the axis plan all along and you played right into it LOL). Japan can be pretty devastating w/IC on Manchu pumping out mech/tanks blasting through the Siberian wilderness, Mongolia and/or northern China. A second IC in FIC can still pressure India/China, but the Japanese would have to keep pumping out expensive mobile units as well as keeping up w/US in naval buys.

In the scenarios you guys have put out there the US is spending Pac the first 2-3 turns and then still some after that (which is good for Germany). They are most likely sitting off Queensland by US3 with a navy that will rival the Japanese. It may not be quite as big, but Anz (and maybe a Brit BB) makes up the difference defensively. Even if the entire Japanese navy is sitting on the Caroline’s they aren’t going to hit the US and Anz/Brit combined forces J3 because they have to come to you, and they will lose (can’t land planes if they take hits on the carriers etc….they would be a sitting duck afterwords if they did survive, and they aren’t reaching their goals in the south. They do however have the option of just hitting the Anz/UK ships though, but the US counter attack would be devastating so that’s not going to happen either.

With that said, the US is still lacking in offensive fire power to go toe to toe w/Japan, but Japan has to worry about a 1-2-3 punch. It would cost Japan too much to stay at Caroline’s in blocker dd’s (and the possible hit by UK/Anz after US clears the way for navy and dose an air strike) so they will most likely be evacuating Caroline’s and setting up shop at the Philippines (they need to take it J3 anyway). There they could block out the US w/dd’s (likely), or set up a mostly air counter attack from China if the US gets ballsy (depends on what is there). They will most likely be using dd blockers so they can split the navy to protect at least one of their transports that will be taking The DEI. They will be sacrificing 1-2 transports in doing so, because they simply can’t split the fleet up anymore to protect them all. They would lose war ships to allied air attacks, or US can opener and Anz/UK navy/air.

I personally don’t like J3 because it leaves too many allied naval units in play in the Pac, and the UK Pac (and Anz) gets to much income to defend itself (harder nut to crack). I like to do J1, kill the Brit BB, and the US ships at both Phil and Hawaii. You lose a sub and a couple dd’s but it really screws the allies. You still move inland on China, take FIC (build IC J2) and Kwangtung on J1. J2 take Malaya and maybe DNG (anz NO’s), and start grabbing money islands. It is much safer and easier to grab DEI when the US isn’t parked off Queensland and you only need to worry about the cowering UK Pac/Anz. Now even if the US spends all it’s income in the Pac the first 3 turns it still isn’t up to par with the Japanese navy. The US can’t even come out to Hawaii on US1 with Japanese fleet sitting at Wake (you left a dd blocker at Hawaii when you killed their ships so they can’t counter) and are hard pressed to do so even on US2 with you bulked up on the Caroline’s J2.

Now you talk about a Japan that is too strong…

[SubmersedElk]

“Out of range” for the Japanese air force is as many as 3 or 4 spaces off the coast - carrier and island landing spots really extend that fighter range quite a bit!

[Nippon-koku]

My philosophy on Pacific naval battles from the Allied perspective has always been this:

If Japan can win the battle, but it will cost them a good chunk of units, even if they’ll completely destroy what you have, it’s usually worth it for the Allies.

Even if you prefer to buy heavy early on in the Atlantic like I do, US should still have a steady stream of ships heading down to Queensland as the game progresses.  From turn 3 on I’m usually doing an alternate turn buy of 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 sub, 1 loaded transport, and then 2 ftr’s, 1 DD, 1 sub, 1 loaded transport. As other posters have mentioned already, in the Pacific you only really need to stop Japan from getting Sydney or Hawaii (for the record, this is why I’m such a big fan of the Russians in Amur move.  Anything that delays Japan from taking India is a massive advantage for the Allies, as it gives them extra time to make trouble in the water).  These steady buys from America, plus whatever Anzac can do to help, will go a long way in combating Japan.

Tolstoj

At this point I think we just respectfully agree to disagree.  Japan is a beast and they can certainly wreck havoc, but I stand by my contention that they cannot be everywhere at once and, with proper coordination from all five Allies in the pacific, they can be kept at bay.

Perhaps one day we’ll get to play a game and put this to the test   8-)

[taamvan]

“This set of assumptions reveals that the only positional moment to attack him will be the one where he has to grab for his true objective. That battle will be at a odds disadvantage to the allies, but you have to take it.”

What I mean Mr. Tolstoi, is that the megastax of Axis planes or ships will, at some point, have to leave the core income area for 2 turns in order to make a monumental strategic attack.  On the Atlantic Map, this is the point at which Germany transitions from keeping its stacked airflotte on West Germany (or HB) to having it move East for 2-3 turns to support its culminating attacks on Moscow, Stalingrad and or Leningrad.  This is the only opening the Allies have to put a fleet in the water or commence an invasion, because after Russia falls, everthing will fly back West in a single turn and become available for offense and defense again.

In the Pacific Map, this moment comes when Japan has moved too far South or West to quickly return to supporting SZ 6.  Japan has to “reach” to get the DEI or Malasia, and this will be only chance that the Allies have to confront something less than the entire fleet at one time.  The turn after they conquest all this stuff, they can form back up into a gigantic stack again, but there will always be 1-2 turns when Japan must subdivide its ships and planes in order to stage them up for upcoming attacks and it is at that point that you will have a brief opporturnity to confront less than everything at once.  By J5-J7, he will have the luxury of forming it all back up into a stack again and you will have to confront him with equal forces.

[creeping-deth87]

@EnoughSaid:

Bad odds for the Russians to attack? They’d have a 61% chance of success vs 12 infantry (or 90% in low luck), let alone 10 and a half. Stacking Manchuria with enough to simply hold the Soviets off is a viable plan, but it’s going to take more than that. If that’s all you have, the Russian player SHOULD attack you. If he doesn’t, that’s on him.
Like Nippon-koku mentioned, the Chinese would love to get the Manchurian money and spawn location.

I’m actually very surprised that Triple A’s battle calculator gives Russia an 80% chance with all 18 infantry vs. my usual 10 man stack and AA gun, so it seems my complacency was misplaced. I will also note however that the average attacker units remaining are 8-9, which I think you’ll agree is a much more manageable number than 18 and can probably be dealt with by a single drop from SZ 6 (which for me isn’t normally a problem, I usually do have transports there).

[ItIsILeClerc]

I don’t think Japan is too strong.
Well, ofc., compared to its historical counterpart, yes, but not in the balance of this game.

If the Victory Conditions would be 14 instead of 8/6, the allies would win all the time, so no, Japan cannot be too strong.
With the VC set to 8/6, both axis powers are too strong because the allies must focus (the USA its income) on 1 axis partner in order to achieve anything meaningful and, with much less to nothing from the USA, try to prevent the other from winning at the same time.

The allies are always able to achieve meaningful victories on the map they’re focusing on (so also on the Pacific map), but the axis power that is not getting the heat is then skyrocketing into someting uncontrollable, and then they will get their required number of VC…

The way I see it now is the USA has 2 options:
1. Focus on Japan. Japan will then quickly (within ~7 turns) be reduced to 50-60 IPCs income, at which point the USA must refocus to Europe, to prevent a German win. If they don’t (refocus), the allies will crush Japan into oblivion, but loose the game on account of German successes in Europe/ME/Africa. If they do (refocus), this will enable Japan to make a comeback and in the end, the allies end up way behind in economic situation, achieving nothing.

2. Focus on Germany. The Nazi’s advance east (all into the Middle East) will be halted after turn ~7 or so, and the allies will crush them. Japan however, will win on the Pacific. Nothing the allies can do against that anymore. In order to prevent this loss in the Pacific, the number of turns the USA can focus on Europe is very limited. Only 2, maybe 2½, but that’s about it. After that the USA must refocus on the Pacific again. So much for Germany first, but if timed and calculated very precicely, the allies may have a small window of opportunity to land in Western Europe and if they can land without being thrown back at once, this usually heralds an allied victory. I can’t stress it out too often, that the landing must be calculated and balanced very carefully because otherwise it fails. This is very hard but in short it comes down to buying only as much escorts as needed (depending on the German airforce) and the rest transports with men and equipment. Lots of transports. Also with the UK. The allies need at least 11 or 12 transports (total togehter) to make a landing during turn 4 (more if forced to land turn 5 because of whatever axis delay-tactics…). This is when Germany has invested a LOT into the Luftwaffe and the allies are forced to buy more escorts for their transports. If Germany has invested more into troops and keeps them west, the allies will need even more transports…

Maybe there is another option that may be the solution to the allied problems of late, but I never tried it because I always assumed it cannot work: spread the US’ s income evenly between the two maps… I very strongly assume this will not work, but if some1 thinks otherwise, please come out ;-).

[WILD BILL]

I agree that in order for the US to make an impact they need to concentrate on one side or the other and not split their resources evenly between the two theaters each round. In other words they need to spend nearly full income on one side for 2-3 maybe 4 turns.

ItIsILeClerc, although I agree with your above scenario, I just wanted to point out that US spending is split about half each side when you look at the bigger picture of multiple rounds (in the first 6 turns anyway). Pac first 2 turns to stabilize the Pac, get Japans attention and have a good starting point for when you refocus. Then going Europe a 2-3 turns so you can make landing that will stick (probably when the German air force is busy in the east), then back to Pac……keep in mind that I’m seeing a lot of J1 attacks so the US income is rampped up from the get go.

On the Pac side you have to build up a defensive fleet to stand up to the Japanese (force him to buy more ships). You need to protect Hawaii/Sidney so you will need more carriers, planes and destroyers (anz can help with that). You will probably have a couple loaded transports to swap money islands, or take back say the Aleutians (pesky Japanese) etc… As time goes on you will need to add offensive units like subs/bmrs (mid game). In many games you set-up a def fleet where you know the Japanese will need to get at some point to force them to go through you (sacrificial lamb). This is good as long as you have a counter attack set-up to finish him off and take back the VC. If nothing else it may stall him.

On the euro side you again have to build a defensive fleet able to take a hit, but you are way behind on ships (unless you use the Panama canal). UK can help with that some, but they have a lot on their plate keeping Egypt/Mid East supplied. Plus UK is also producing a ton of ftrs for Moscow and reinforcing US landings w/RAF. You also need many transports with both nations to make your landings stick (which again you don’t have). It will take more then just a couple turns to build up to make a statement in Europe IMO.

So really I guess that it is more in what the US buys once we get to the 5-6th turn. Both sides will need heavy investment in surface ships in the beginning that will typically stay on that side because they are slower moving. You need units that can jump from one side to the other quickly in later rounds, so in the mid game you should probably buy more air units? Often times I will buy bmrs (like 4-5 in one turn) for W US to get Japans attention, then fly them to London (or Scotland) on the next turn (seems like a lot of map, but they can make it). From London bmrs can help destroy the German fleet, or wipe out some weaker German defended territories next to territories I’m making landings on (Germans generally count heavily on their air so they will have inf/mech in key places (like Paris) to take the hits for the Luftwaffe. If you want to tip the scales of the Moscow battle bmrs in Scotland can make it to Moscow in one turn. It seems costly, but several bmrs change the odds of a close battle by 5-10% so your bmrs taking those first hits are costing him air units in the long run even if it doesn’t stall him.

Your bmrs in London could do some SBR depending on where the Luftwaffe is to make him pay more for the Atlantic def. If your bmrs make it to Moscow (and delay him) you can bomb the German ICs that are pumping out units on Red territories to make those units more costly, they generally wont’ have ftrs on them (well the first time anyway). SBR may not be that great anymore, but it will tie up some of his ftrs.

Any way it’s safe to say I like bmrs, they are cool have great range and yea in some cases over powered LOL

[Nippon-koku]

Agreed that the US has to focus on one side early on.  I feel it’s easier to play catch-up in the Pacific, so I usually go heavy in the Atlantic first.

Trying to evenly split your money from turn 1 on is a recipe for failure.

[SubmersedElk]

So I just played my first ever game as Axis - to date everyone has been willing to give a 9-15 bid, but an opponent last night bid 8 so I let him have it. (He added a sub to the Med and pocketed the other 2 IPC).

He spent US IPC in Atlantic (perhaps in response to my standard G1 fleet buy) and pulled Pac ships back to western US and put initial UK focus on Italy.

I DOWed him J2 and the situation for Japan couldn’t have been better. At the end of J2 I had every IPC/objective-relevant island in the Pacific except Celebes already in hand; could hold Yunnan; was two full levels deep into China; was immediately threatening India (forcing ineffective turtle by UK Pac); and there was not a single opposing transport between western US and the horn of Africa. This was later followed up by two factories in Asia each of which pumped out 3 tanks/turn by turn 5 builds; and a full-on strat bombing of India facilities, effectively taking UK-Pac out of the game before UK4. By the time the US switched to all-Pac (turn 4 or so), he was so far behind he couldn’t advance past Hawaii (and only got that far because I was still prioritizing Asia for Japan’s air force). The tank/air force just needed to mass in order to smash the remnant of China and then UK Pac, and I could then spend 40+ IPC/turn on fleet with a pullback of a few fighters to counter the US buildup.

I did lose the game but only because I messed up the tactics on the German side, which was more a result of my inexperience with Axis than anything. But there I was, first time Axis player and let to its own devices I was able to leverage Japan to take them to the house. I made lots of mistakes too, so it’s not like I had to play it perfectly - I was basically imitating all the things that I had seen others do from the Allies’ perspective to see if my opponent had answers that I didn’t.

I know some people automatically assume that having those units from the Far East in Russia proper is the best course, but if Japan does its job right those units make it west of Mongolia just in time to be confronted by a mixed Japanese stack that can overwhelm them. I would argue that those units are compelled to mass in the east in order to give China/UK-Pac a chance to survive. Taking 10 Japanese land units out of the equation in those early rounds makes a huge difference. Also allowing Japan control of the Mongolia situation by allowing it to trigger the intervention at its leisure (when it has had the opportunity to move in 4 extra inf to clean up the new Russian units) and collecting the northern Russian territories by running tanks around empty space instead of having to knock out at least a picket every space for the whole march.

It’s because of this that I believe that a) Russia can’t abandon the east, they need to put those 18 units on Amur at some point to force Japanese units away from China/UK; and b) UK/ANZAC/US need to play an aggressive counter-game to force Japan to spend to defend its Pacific territories while eliminating as many land units on the ground as possible.  If you don’t, there are few good answers to a J2 where J1 is pounding China and staging naval units and transports in complete safety for a mass J2 attack followed by a J3 cleanup. Yes, you bring the USA into the war early, but they’re not really positioned to do much that early anyway. I prefer J2 to J1 because having that first turn to move in safety and stage units is a powerful asset and allows you to see Allied 1st turn buys which tip off your opponent’s strategy before you commit to your own strategy and maintains the option to delay further if there is advantage to be gained by it.