The Japan Playbook

yea…i still have mixed thoughts about it, but it is WAY fun…and WAY WAY freaking hard to counter as the Allies.  i am in one game right now against Seth (a very pro G1 J1 DOW player) and and its a stronger stratagy than i would have guessed from the last face to face game it was tried; that game was a total flop…because his jap partner shot him self in the foot on round one and cut his own throught every round after that…his germans and italians were winning the day in europe but than with japn so weak the US made up the differnace in europe.

with out a doubt though…its way fun getting right into the mess round 1!

j1 dow is really fun and more optimal than a j2 dow regarding india. only downside on pac is a strong china which can lead to a usa fac in korea backd up by mass ussr n china infs.

but the reason I wont ever do it in a competitive game is cause it messes up with africa n med.

Yeah, trying the J1 in one of my games- its fun til round 4-5…weee I’m powerful…uh, wait a second…I’m not anymore.

@Cow:

Seth is a cool player. I admire the full on balls to the wall rush.

yea, he is a very challanging fun player…even better in face to face games!

As a note, I thoroughly enjoyed my sole game of J1 DOW.  Almost won the pacific and I do agree it makes you a better Japan player in general. I learned a ton about Japan with the J1 DOW.

Analyze this…

18inf, 2AA–>Bury (R1)- Russia has the option to go east or west, waits for Japan- delay move.
                -->Amur (R2)- If Japan goes south, Russia now steps up.
                -->Korea (R3)- Gains 3IPCs and remains as a landing base for US fighters

then US ftr shuck, 18 planes to Moscow by round 7.

If Japan kills the stack at ANY time, they are grossly out of position, lose a handful of units, and India will stay alive- period.

This works for anything J1, J2, J3, J4- doesn’t matter what kind of crappy gambit they throw. � Don’t fall back, pimp slap Japan back to Tokyo!!!

If 6inf are left in Amur and Japan attacks round 1- that is also silly. � Why is it silly??? � No one should leave anything on Amur round 1 to begin with as Russia.

I’m interested in your so-called Russian playbook. � Russia can last at least til round 8 in any Euro attack I’ve seen. � I counterattack with Russia building tanks right from the get go to delay the “svinehund” a round or 2 til I get serious Allied ground and aircraft help.

@questioneer:

Analyze this…

18inf, 2AA–>Bury (R1)- Russia has the option to go east or west, waits for Japan- delay move.
               -->Amur (R2)- If Japan goes south, Russia now steps up.
               -->Korea (R3)- Gains 3IPCs and remains as a landing base for US fighters

then US ftr shuck, 18 planes to Moscow by round 7.

If Japan kills the stack at ANY time, they are grossly out of position, lose a handful of units, and India will stay alive- period.

This works for anything J1, J2, J3, J4- doesn’t matter what kind of crappy gambit they throw. � Don’t fall back, pimp slap Japan back to Tokyo!!!

If 6inf are left in Amur and Japan attacks round 1- that is also silly. � Why is it silly??? � No one should leave anything on Amur round 1 to begin with as Russia.

I’m interested in your so-called Russian playbook. � Russia can last at least til round 8 in any Euro attack I’ve seen. � I counterattack with Russia building tanks right from the get go to delay the “svinehund” a round or 2 til I get serious Allied ground and aircraft help.

99% the games I played I was happy to see a russian korea instead of an american one.

if usa grabs korea and ussr can back it up with inf stack (combined with the option of china backing it up via infs from manch), a fac in korea might be troublesome for japs.
but if it s russia who gets korea, it only means a landing spot for usa. so I let them have it, not even bothering to retake it and conti with whatev I m doing with japs. I can always go back and deal with them later, since that stack is not presenting an immediate threath.

u mentioned 18 planes to moscow by round 7. I never did that, but saw being done against me a couple of times.  was really disasterous for allies. since usa spent that much effort for sending ftrs to save moscow, japs had almost no resistance down in dei and after getting india, was able to both provide air supprt to europe n threaten pac win.
not to mention once bryansk stack was secured, ger was able to outmaneuver allies and help ita get med/africa.

so based on my xp I really think 20 russians in korea in r3 is not the best option for ussr, and usa ftrs to moscow via korea might be one of the worst strategies for usa.

slightly off the topic: u mention here building tanks with ussr right from the start, if I remember correctly u also mentioned before, that u buy 3 tanks per round with ussr. just wanted to warn, ger can have a decent shot at moscow g6, and probably can take it in g7 if russia overcommits to tanks.

u mentioned 18 planes to moscow by round 7. I never did that, but saw being done against me a couple of times.  was really disasterous for allies. since usa spent that much effort for sending ftrs to save moscow, japs had almost no resistance down in dei and after getting india, was able to both provide air supprt to europe n threaten pac win.
not to mention once bryansk stack was secured, ger was able to outmaneuver allies and help ita get med/africa.

Agreed.  It seems to me that flying figs to Moscow intentionally for defense is a weak strategy in a game where Axis is typically close to economic parity after 2 rounds.  The only time I’d consider it is if Germany is timing a Moscow attack and Allies time the air relief to come on exactly the turn before the optimal time for Germany to attack.  In that case, the fighters are typically arriving from nw persia or from the china stack.  Actually, on that note, Iraq would be a decent spot for an air base with that contingency in mind.

A much better strategy for stopping Germany is open up a new front in France that makes it impossible for Germany to reinforce the Eastern front, and allows Russia to eventually regain territory.

tanks gives you the ability to counterattack…there a big difference between rolling a 3 (tank) vs. a 2 (artillery).

As far as US taking Korea- yes you’re right if Japan is going to attack on J3 and J4- J2 also maybe.  On a J1 attack, you have to get something to Moscow fast- planes and bombers are the only logical choice especially if combined with a hard Barbarossa.  In that case you need the landing spot fast to get there.

I’m also toying with the Gibaltar air shuck in combo with this.

Don’t forget- taking Korea can be costly- 6 kamikazee, but yeah, once you get it and hold it for Russia to slip in and protect it with 18inf, 2AA then yeah build a major and rest is history.  Still gotta make sure the Europe side doesn’t get sacked though so SOMETHING has gotta go there.

This is my main issue with Cow and others- that the Allies NEED a bid b/c Axis has the advantage.  I don’t buy it.  Through all the games I’m playing right now, I’m trying and honing different counters.  I see a couple of good Allied strategies coming together but it may take some more time.  Allies are harder to play so I think the learning curve is going to take longer.  This is similar to what happened to Revised and AA50 execept that it was with Axis.

I think this time next year we will with all honesty say who has the advantage in this game and what side needs a bid if any.  Final Alpha has only been out 3-4 months, players on both sides are making a lot of mistakes and learning.  I’m sure Cow’s “playbooks” will be revised a few times by next year because of this.  When you open up your playbook to the community along with some play online or PBF you open yourself up to scutiny.  People will test your claims and a lot of times find good counters to them.  That’s just the evolution of gameplay.

Most noobs here won’t challenge the claim that Axis have the advantage. Instead they just take the easy route and take a bid.  Honestly we should all be working on how to counter Axis strategies since most have trouble with it.  Bids shouldn’t even be talked about for a few months yet.  Especially since this version has only been out a short time.  I think we may find out that Allies have the advantage or the game is actually even.

The overall strategy is simple- kill Russia fast and Axis wins.  So the Allied strategy is simply to delay or even stop that take over b/c they naturally become stronger over time- especially after round 10.  Sealion is a playable strategy, but that has been proven to more or less lead to an Allied win over time.

@questioneer:

tanks gives you the ability to counterattack…there a big difference between rolling a 3 (tank) vs. a 2 (artillery).

actually arts are better for counterattack as long as range is not a problem, and u got enough enough infs to keep supporting (something which ussr doesnt lack), since u can buy 3 arts for the same price as 2 tanks.

@questioneer:

As far as US taking Korea- yes you’re right if Japan is going to attack on J3 and J4- J2 also maybe.  On a J1 attack, you have to get something to Moscow fast- planes and bombers are the only logical choice especially if combined with a hard Barbarossa.  In that case you need the landing spot fast to get there.

compared to sending air via korea, sending air through med n middle east is a better option for allies. first it s equal in speed (if not faster), and more importantly going through med opens up more options for allies to mess european axis. considering u r sending those ftrs in response to a hard barbarossa, that s much better than sightseeing in siberia.

but still I agree with zhukov, usually there are more optimal strategies avalaible to allies (including forcing ger to commit resources on another front being the most effective) than sending air support to moscow to defend .

regarding game balance I do agree with what u r saying, it seems balanced enough, BUT playing allies is much harder compared to playing allies. right now, there is also a separate topic to discuss the balance.

ps: cant build majors on territory originally belonging to another power. so usa can only build a minor in korea

@questioneer:

tanks gives you the ability to counterattack…there a big difference between rolling a 3 (tank) vs. a 2 (artillery).

As far as US taking Korea- yes you’re right if Japan is going to attack on J3 and J4- J2 also maybe.  On a J1 attack, you have to get something to Moscow fast- planes and bombers are the only logical choice especially if combined with a hard Barbarossa.  In that case you need the landing spot fast to get there.

I’m also toying with the Gibaltar air shuck in combo with this.

Don’t forget- taking Korea can be costly- 6 kamikazee, but yeah, once you get it and hold it for Russia to slip in and protect it with 18inf, 2AA then yeah build a major and rest is history.  Still gotta make sure the Europe side doesn’t get sacked though so SOMETHING has gotta go there.

This is my main issue with Cow and others- that the Allies NEED a bid b/c Axis has the advantage.  I don’t buy it.  Through all the games I’m playing right now, I’m trying and honing different counters.  I see a couple of good Allied strategies coming together but it may take some more time.  Allies are harder to play so I think the learning curve is going to take longer.  This is similar to what happened to Revised and AA50 execept that it was with Axis.Â

I think this time next year we will with all honesty say who has the advantage in this game and what side needs a bid if any.  Final Alpha has only been out 3-4 months, players on both sides are making a lot of mistakes and learning.  I’m sure Cow’s “playbooks” will be revised a few times by next year because of this.  When you open up your playbook to the community along with some play online or PBF you open yourself up to scutiny.  People will test your claims and a lot of times find good counters to them.  That’s just the evolution of gameplay.

Most noobs here won’t challenge the claim that Axis have the advantage. Instead they just take the easy route and take a bid.  Honestly we should all be working on how to counter Axis strategies since most have trouble with it.  Bids shouldn’t even be talked about for a few months yet.  Especially since this version has only been out a short time.  I think we may find out that Allies have the advantage or the game is actually even.

The overall strategy is simple- kill Russia fast and Axis wins.  So the Allied strategy is simply to delay or even stop that take over b/c they naturally become stronger over time- especially after round 10.  Sealion is a playable strategy, but that has been proven to more or less lead to an Allied win over time.

Concerning Korea, you can’t place a major IC there unless you are playing as Japan

@soulfein:

@questioneer:

Analyze this…

18inf, 2AA–>Bury (R1)- Russia has the option to go east or west, waits for Japan- delay move.
               -->Amur (R2)- If Japan goes south, Russia now steps up.
               -->Korea (R3)- Gains 3IPCs and remains as a landing base for US fighters

then US ftr shuck, 18 planes to Moscow by round 7.

If Japan kills the stack at ANY time, they are grossly out of position, lose a handful of units, and India will stay alive- period.

This works for anything J1, J2, J3, J4- doesn’t matter what kind of crappy gambit they throw. � Don’t fall back, pimp slap Japan back to Tokyo!!!

If 6inf are left in Amur and Japan attacks round 1- that is also silly. � Why is it silly??? � No one should leave anything on Amur round 1 to begin with as Russia.

I’m interested in your so-called Russian playbook. � Russia can last at least til round 8 in any Euro attack I’ve seen. � I counterattack with Russia building tanks right from the get go to delay the “svinehund” a round or 2 til I get serious Allied ground and aircraft help.

99% the games I played I was happy to see a russian korea instead of an american one.

if usa grabs korea and ussr can back it up with inf stack (combined with the option of china backing it up via infs from manch), a fac in korea might be troublesome for japs.
but if it s russia who gets korea, it only means a landing spot for usa. so I let them have it, not even bothering to retake it and conti with whatev I m doing with japs. I can always go back and deal with them later, since that stack is not presenting an immediate threath.

u mentioned 18 planes to moscow by round 7. I never did that, but saw being done against me a couple of times.  was really disasterous for allies. since usa spent that much effort for sending ftrs to save moscow, japs had almost no resistance down in dei and after getting india, was able to both provide air supprt to europe n threaten pac win.
not to mention once bryansk stack was secured, ger was able to outmaneuver allies and help ita get med/africa.

so based on my xp I really think 20 russians in korea in r3 is not the best option for ussr, and usa ftrs to moscow via korea might be one of the worst strategies for usa.

slightly off the topic: u mention here building tanks with ussr right from the start, if I remember correctly u also mentioned before, that u buy 3 tanks per round with ussr. just wanted to warn, ger can have a decent shot at moscow g6, and probably can take it in g7 if russia overcommits to tanks.

You mention China backing up in Korea. I assume you mean reinforce. China can’t do that, they can’t leave china unless it is to go to Burma or Kwangtung

@questioneer:

tanks gives you the ability to counterattack…there a big difference between rolling a 3 (tank) vs. a 2 (artillery).

2 2s (artillery) are roughly equal to a 1 and a 3 (tank), when you have dozens of 1s in front of them.
So even though tanks can catch up faster and threaten way more territory, artillery are much more cost-effective on offense - and therefore superior.
Russia always wants to have lots of artillery if they want to be threatening counter attacks.  And since Russia’s supply lines are much shorter, artillery are usually a better buy.
Again, only usually.

@questioneer:

Most noobs here won’t challenge the claim that Axis have the advantage. Instead they just take the easy route and take a bid.� Honestly we should all be working on how to counter Axis strategies since most have trouble with it.� Bids shouldn’t even be talked about for a few months yet.� Especially since this version has only been out a short time.� I think we may find out that Allies have the advantage or the game is actually even.

Disagree.  We heard the same reasoning alot about aa50, and as a result noobs were often taken advantage of because they didn’t realize Allies needed a larger bid in that setup.  In my case, since almost everyone on these forums refused to make an adequate bid for Allies, I was only able to practice my Allies on TripleA live or TripleA warclub, where I would get the 9 bid (which is the bare minimum imho) I felt I needed for my strategy.

Global has been out long enough for some people to feel Axis has the advantage in a no-bid situation.  There’s a good chance that perception is wrong.  But that is not a reason not to use bids.  The goal of bidding is simply to allow both sides to feel the sides were chosen fairly and that the game was started on even terms.

You also need to keep in mind that the learning curve for Global is VERY steep, and the strategies are far from solidified.  It goes without saying that a more experienced player–playing Allies with no bid–can easily defeat a less experienced player.  You will only get to the point where you can make conclusions about bids when the strats are more solidified and there is a larger pool of experts.  Right now the pool of players is small and some are obviously much more advanced than others.

So in the meantime, it’s only natural that some players feel more comfortable with the less complicated Axis.  Bidding ensures that both sides feel the game is fair and consequently the game is more fun.  If both sides feel the game is being played under fair conditions, then both sides will learn more, instead of blaming losses on the inherent disadvantage of one side or the other.

@Zhukov44:

You also need to keep in mind that the learning curve for Global is VERY steep, and the strategies are far from solidified.

I totally agree with this.