What Turn to Attack with Japan?

After thinking about the long term logistics and economics of the game a fair bit, I am getting comfortable with my Germany strategy.

What puzzles me though is the Japan entry in the war and how it may affect the European board.

My current idea for Japan is the following:

Turn 1:

Build 3 transports, 1 Mech

Declare war on US, UK, Anzac

Combat 1: Repeat of Prince of Wales sinking, with 2 strategic bombers, cruiser from 20 and fighter from Formosa.

Combat 2: Land 1 infantry in Borneo (infantry from Kiangsi), Transport from zone 20, covers with fleet from Carolinas

Combat 3:  Attack Phillipines

Ground battle, 1 tank, 1 artillery and 2 infantry (2 remaining transport)
Tac bomber / figther from Carolinas carrier

See battle, 2 subs (zone 6 and 19), zone 19 battleship, zone 19 destroyer, cruiser from zone 6 and 2 carriers + planes from zone 6.

Combat 4: Take chahar with 1 infantry from Jehol

Combat 5: 2 infantry from Siam take French Indo

Combat 6: Attack Kwantung
1 Art from Kiangsi
2 INF from Kwangsi
2 Tac from Japan
1 fighter from Okinawa
1 fighter from Kiangsu
1 tac from Kiangsu

Combat 7: Attack Anwhe
1 Infantry and 1 Art from Jehol
3 infantry and 1 art from Kiangsu
3 infantry and 1 art from Shantung
1 Mech from Mandchuria

Combat 8: Attack Hunan
2 Inf from Kiangsi
2 fighters from Mandchuria (Goes to Kwangsi)
2 tac from Mandchuria (goes to Kwangsi)

Non Combat
4 Infantry from Korea into Mandchuria
6 Infantry from Mandchuria in Jehol

In Kwangsi
5 fighters (2 from Mandchuria, 1 Okinawa, 1 Formosa, 1 Kiangsu)
5 tactical bombers
2 bombers
1 ART
1 Inf

In Anwhe

7 Inf
1 Mec
3 Artillery

Leave in Japan to protect against Hawai fleet
2 DD
1 BB
3 fighters (1 from Korea, 2 from Japan)

Losses
1 cruiser zone 20
1 infantry in Kwantung
1 infantry in Hunnan
2 infantry in Phillipines
Total: 24 IPC

Japan collects 40 IPC

The result of Turn 1 is:

a) Weakened UK southeast fleet by destroying battleship, forces UK to spend all money on fleet and potentially pull out of the Med to reinforce India, giving relief to Italy.
b) took 7 IPC off UK bankrolll with Hong Kong and Borneo
c) UK / Anzac are not in position to take Dutch islands
d) japan well positioned to attack Malaya (Pounding on India more and crippling Anzac further)
e) China is pushed back a little bit and a decent stack of land units is moving down China
f) US loses Philipines (2 IPC + 5 IPC bonus)
g) preservation of Japanese Navy, Fleet off philipines can easily pull back to Japan as necesary
h) There is not much that India, China and Anzac or US can do in the immediate to retaliate.

Obvious disadvantage is that US gets more income immediately and has the initiative in Europe. For example. US forces could head straight for Gibraltar and link up with a portion of the British navy that survives. But, a critical portion of my European strategy is to control Gibraltar…

Let’s assume this continues:

On Turn 2, Japan:

May buy a carrier if US fleet is threatening
6 land units (infantry and mech infantry)
Maybe something else (e.g., or another transport)

Takes Malaya (UK down to 9, assuming persia was taken)
Takes Shan States to start putting pressure on India (UK down to 8)
If Malaya is weak and if not costly to protect transport, take one of the Dutch Islands
Navy destroys blockers off 37, 42, 41, 38 and may attack fleet in Zone 39
Stays quiet and China, takes free territory, but avoid battles while moving south
Japan drops 6 land units on mainland with transport built (Kiangsu)
Watch moves of US navy and Anzac for transports and counter attacks on islands.

You note that I am not cutting the Burma road, but given the firepower in Hunnan and Kwangsi, the Chinese will build up stay back on Turn 2.

Meanwhile, the Italians focus on coming through Irak to squeeze in India good.

In Turn 3, japan builds up navy to handle US and keep expanding his grasp on the Islands and builds.

In Turn 4, India should fall and Japan will have plenty to face China, at least on a defensive basis (planes)

I think the US would need to react to this and spend a decent deal of IPCs in the Pacific?

My strategy with Germany is to steadily build a counter to UK / US invation while grinding into Russia with some help with the Italians (main objective is Leningrad and keeping Norway with a strong Navy.

Thoughts?

I’ve considered a Japan attack turn 2 strategy, but in this case I can’t seem to benefit as much from the initiative (don’t count on mistakes on the Allies’s players part, he’s quite good)

My ultimate goal is for Japan to become very predominant (IPC from DEI is juicy) and work using the overall logistics of the game to the Axis’ advantage:

1. Force US to spend most IPC in Pacific, therefore using Japan’s navy and airforce. Logistics work against the US here if US has to attack. Japan is always a turn ahead and has island / scramble / plane recovery / naval base repair advantage. Taking India forces the US to not conceed Hawai, it has to hold it.

2. Seems important to prevent India and Australia to become significant (they can with the DEI and the special conditions, the UK forces are significant if they get the chance to regroup, e.g., BB off Malays), need to keep those powers small and ineffective.

3. Similarly, in Europe, German works on using its logitics the best. It expands in Russia to weaken it and grow in strength, but does not ovextend. Keeping lines short and being patient. Preserve and build air force and Navy to make Allies’ life complicated (and allowing Italians to prosper in the Med). Without very strong US support, the threat will not be sufficient to have Germany in danger. Be clever with use of airforce as can help on Eastern front and Western Front.

4. IF Japan manages to hold out in Pacific, (especially if US does a mistake), Japan should be able to go around China with its land power and clean up the middle east / Threaten Russia / link up with Italy.

I don’t like the US reinforcing Europe very quickly (including gibraltar and Uk, question is wether Germany can live wth this in the long run)…  Also the US is getting a lot of IPCs on Turn 2 and 3.

As part of this plan, Sealion is a possibility if a mistake is made by UK, the German buy is one carrier, 1 sub, 1 transport (I’ve also considered 2 transports). I don’t think Sealion has a chance to succeed with the US in the war, however (e.g., can move planes over quickly). The key point of building out the Navy and transport is to take Leningrad, hold Norway and force Allies to invest heavily in Naby before any ground troops land on continent (subs and planes are cheap)

So I guess in my plan, the Axis would be gaining a long term advantage by being selectively aggressive and conservative and using logistics to their advantage (and in the hope of the allies losing patience / waisting resources). I don’t think IPC parity is needed to sustain the advantage in those conditions, and the hope is that agressive moves on japan’s part at the beginning are going to help close the gap enough.

I am moving into FIC to preserve my forces, gain more IPC and put pressure on Yunnan to avoid China threatening my planes in Kwangsi (I thought about the alternative and thought that my trops in Shan States would be wiped out anywa, leaving everything exposed thereafter)

The fighter from Korea is mobing to Japan to cover the fleet.

To make it clear, it is not realistic for Germany to go after London or Moscow in the first 5-6 turns of the game with this approach (Japan does the land conquests via India and climb back with Caucausus).  I don’t think attacking Siberia would help (but I would not mind setting a trap for the Siberian troops if they become too ambitious).

With this strategy, Germany is the Anvil, Japan is the hammer and Italy is used to punch holes, make blocks, harrass and capture the oil fields.

The overall impression I get is that people believe Japan will end up getting wacked by the US and unable to capitalize on taking the DEI and India?

I may indeed look at the naval builds more closely (over several turns) to see how long the initial Japan naval and air superiority enables Japan to hang in there.

If Japan does not attach on turn 1, the Brits can regroup and can start grabbing the DEI and become a more serious threat. If Japan attacks on G2, the allies have some option to counter. Of course Japan gets 10 IPC and the US is deprived of several IPCs…

@Young:

Attacking the US fleet J1 will not get you any closer to taking and holding San Fransisco. Better to go after Calcutta.

Agreed, none of the move above gets to the US fleet in the Hawai zone. Still planning to attack Phillipines on J1

So many threads about what Germany should do, looks like people don’t have ideas for what’s best to play with Japan…

On another forum, one guy suggested to get straight at Russia’s throat on J1 and more or less ignore everything else. I have my doubts!

@eudemonist:

I like round two, or sometimes three, depending on both nearby positioning and Europe.

First round purchase has evolved into a minor on the mainland and two transports.  In a long game, Japan absolutely has to have production on the mainland to keep up with China and India.  I look to be able to take Phillipines, Malaya (tough, but worth it), Borneo, Kwangtung, and maybe Java the round I attack.  I also try to use most, maybe all, of my subs to attack Anzac income and force them to build destroyers and move them the wrong direction.

Can’t bring myself to attack first round.  I think about it, but I just don’t see it.

How do you deal with combined threat of US navy moving to Haiwai, the UK regrouping / building its fleet and Anzac sending fighters over to help the UK?

IS the UK / Anzac taking over the DEI?

@knp7765:

@Omega1759:

On another forum, one guy suggested to get straight at Russia’s throat on J1 and more or less ignore everything else. I have my doubts!

Yeah, I agree with you.  I don’t think that is a good strategy, at least not for Japan’s well being.  If the Axis are playing a game to simply win on the Europe board, and Germany’s attack into Russia is going pretty good, then perhaps a Japanese thrust into Russia would be good.  The farther they get, the less IPCs Russia has to defend against the German onslaught.  It’s even possible that a Japanese force can threaten Moscow.
However, this would be near suicide for Japan itself.  For one thing, all those Russian territories produce very little income for Japan and you would be probably giving up on getting the DEI, Malaya, Philippines and Kwangtung.  Those territories nearly double Japan’s income plus include 2 victory cities.  Also, the Chinese are eventually going to build up enough strength and with British help will start taking those expensive coastal territories, cutting Japan’s income even further.  So Japan will start to make less money than they started with.  Finally, USA could quickly build up enough navy to not only smash the Japanese navy but possibly even invade Japan.  All this to help Germany’s conquest on the other side of the world.

I never viewed the game as a victory city play, always tried to win total world domination and that’s an entirely different ruleset. I am wondering if those strategies focused on winning one side of the map could result inthe Axis really winning in the long run… If Japan is dealt with one turn after the Europeans Axis manage to capture their victory cities, I can’t see how the Axis can survive in the long run.

@JimmyHat:

I would try your idea but each time we reach a VC win, both players are wayyy tired and ready to be done.  If you can find someone who is willing to play to the bitter end, then I would suggest trying this strategy and seeing if you can then resuscitate the Japanese.

Generally, we would look at the IPC count and the board to see who would win at that point. We don’t need to fight to the end, we give up when the other side has a sustainable advantage that cannot be turned.

After the scenario where both Germany and Japan go after russia…

Would have US at 70, UK at 30, India in the 25-30s, Anzac in the 20s, China in the 20s  (160 total) against:

Japan in the 30s (Japan + Russia soon to be dead)
Germany in the 60s (original + russia less Norway / iron ore)
Italy in the 20s (can’t be that successful if India is strong)

110…

I think we would consider at that point that the allies have won…

On your point in bold, the UK India fleet will be:

1 Carrier built turn 1, equiped with 2 planes
1 BB
1 Cruiser
1 Destroyer
1 Destroyer from South Africa
1 French destroyer
Potentially the Egypt Aircraft Carrier and Cruiser and any Turn 2 purchases (if UK takes DEI, they will have money to buy more ships)
Potential to use Anzac planes

Combine this with threat from US fleet and I think you would be outnumbered by Turn 3.

@eudemonist:

@Omega1759:

How do you deal with combined threat of US navy moving to Haiwai, the UK regrouping / building its fleet and Anzac sending fighters over to help the UK?

IS the UK / Anzac taking over the DEI?

I do my best to cat-and-mouse with the Americans…destroyer blocks work o.k., and can cause them to spread their fleet.  The U.K. fleet, even after regrouping, isn’t all that tough to take out, and they don’t often have the cash to buy more ships.

The DEI is usually 3/4, if not entirely, enemy-controlled by the time I spring, but usually with one (at most two) infantry per.  Most often there are two Zacks on Java, an empty Borneo, and maybe one each in Celebes and Sumatra.  I usually hit the lightly defended ones in my first war round, along with any U.K./ANZAC boats that can support them, and clean up the others next round.  U.S. is rarely in a position to support them.

The hardest part is keeping the U.S. out of a position where they can bring their weight to bear.  I dodge 'em (and occasionally leave juicy targets for them simply to get them to go after them and be out of position) while trying to secure (most of) China and the South Pacific, choking Anzerk with subs. Try not to go head-to-head until you’re cranking good money, and really not even then if you can help it.