Siberian Suicide

I like the idea. Have always liked killing the  Siberian Inf and marching West.
Will look at it in front of the map later.

Better Idea is “the Orange Blob”
Send all avalable units to Charhar on turn 1
Push straight through china, turn after turn, hugging the manchurian border.

Play really defensive against all the other allies and make a b-line for moscow

I see very little incentive for Japan to break the border pact.  You make enemies of the Mongolians, and oftentimes the Russian army sneaks into China via Mongolia (rather than an exposed advance on the coast).  Whatever resources Japan invests in Siberia will make it that much harder to subdue China and India.

The only exception that makes any sense to me is if Russia puts significant force on Amur on Turn 1.  Even in that case, there are very good reasons to just ignore them (until they break the pact and guarantee Mongolia’s neutrality).

As far as helping Germany get the VC win by helping in Siberia….whatever gains you make in Siberia will be negated by the extra money the Western Allies will have to spend against Germany.

I’m starting to think that Japan should DOW russia J1 and wait on the allies until j3 to weaken Russia for the Europe theater.

It’s so hard to get 6 VCs anyway with the Allies usually going KJF.

I recommend the Japan playbook.

I have the setup listed. It is not a total suicide per say. You are just playing from a round behind doing Russia DOW J1. J1 DOW everyone (don’t attack russia) just puts you a round ahead of J2 (but J1 is risky, but the reward is you kick off the war early and before the allies get their stuff together). J2 DOW is standard I feel.

Getting Siberia out of the way is not a bad decision. The allies still have to invest in shutting you down.

It is actually a good decision if you are not declaring war anyway so germany can do his sea lion thing.
~
If you are dead set on sea lion. I highly recommend smacking Siberia up for cash while you wait for round 3 anyway.

Plus it makes things easier on germany following sea lion… less russian mech for romania and all that yo.

Are the Siberian troops really that important for Germany against Russia that they warrant screwing up the Japanese?

In my book, the Germans are camping in Smolensk in turn 6. Yes, because of the Siberian troops, you may not be able to take Moscow straightway, but the additional troops will only delay things for the Russians (this could matter if you attack the stack right away, but why do that?). In the game I played recently, the Japanese went through China to take Stalingrad and the Italians are breaking through the South also working with the Germans. The Germans are ready to flank the North side and continue with a light charge through Siberia (Japan has not activated the Mongolians). The Soviet Union is losing income fast and no longer has ability to counter-attack without risking their capital (the Siberian troops help defend, but not sufficiently for Russia to hold significantly more ground). So, it’s just a matter of time before Russia falls at that point. Marginal spending is needed on Germany, Italy and Japan’s part to squeeze the Russians into submission (say 25 IPCs for Germany, 9 IPC for Italy and 9 IPC for Japan).

Since only little spending is required to finish the job in Russia, Japan is able to keep the US (very strong but can’t be a lethal threat for a couple more turns and it can be handled), India and Anzac at bay (both are holding their ground, but weakened) and Italy / Germany are sufficiently strong to keep the UK and the US on the other side of the map.

The Germans / Italians / Japanese just need to hold their ground at that point (which costs a lot less than what the UK / US spends to go after them) while slowly squeezing the Russians from all sides. Think about what it costs to build a significant threat on the European side and the Japanese side.

1 transport + 1 infantry and 1 artillery = 14 IPC, if you let that Land, it takes only a few IPCs to deal with that. Transports require protection, which means many carriers + fighters. On the European side, these can be dealt with with a mix of submarines and planes much cheaper than what is required to protect the transports. So basically, build your airforce and Navy cannon fodder to make landings extremely costly. The allies can’t keep up with both building a significant landing force and deal with the fleet protecting that force. As the axis commander, you can decide to deal with the naval force (with air + sub fodder) OR the troops that landed with your air force (air + infantry fodder). That means that to keep up with you, the Allies need to spend almost three times as much 1) Naval defence, 2) transport capabilities, 3) ground troops. On your end, planes serve as 1) land defence, 2) land offense, 3) Naval offense. Only relatively modest amounts of subs / infantry are needed to complement that air force.

On Pacific, a combination of fighters / infantry on Japan is much cheaper defense than what the US needs to cause a lethal threat. A combination of planes / subs as a counterattack is much cheaper than defending against it. Japan can use land based planes to supplement their counterattacks. The US needs to hold zones / land which makes things a lot more difficult and costly.

In summary, I don’t think the Axis should be in a “hurry” to take Russia. You should reduce it and use logistical advantages (division of IPCs among Allied powers, need to build transports, protection force and the land force) to hold other fronts. If Russia is taken down and Axis are able to push back elsewhere, is there any way that Allies can win? If so what’s the hurry?

@Vance:

Zhukov, with this plan there would be no Russian army to get into China, and the remaining mongolians could be picked off in subsequent turns.  I haven’t done the math to see if its a net gain or loss for the axis.  It is probably a net loser but maybe the psychological impact of knowing the Siberians are not coming is worth something?

I don’t understand how you intend to kill the Siberians without using a mass air strafe…and the consequences of that could be awesome for the Allies.  Japs have only got 21 planes vrs aprox. 19 inf 2 aa…sure the Japs will clear it but it’s very dicey, and it’s not likely to play out in your favor if you lose 7 planes or more.

The larger point is that if you are putting all these resources into Siberia, what is to stop China (and anzac and ukpac) from becoming a monster?  If you haven’t got Yunnan by J2, then UK can declare on UK2 and reinforce Yunnan.  With all your air stuck up north, idk how Japan ever gets Yunnan back.  In addition, if you are using your air to attack Siberians on R2, you probably aren’t declaring on the Allies J2, which is great news for the Allies, who can declare on you for NOs while continuing to grab island money.  If China, UKpac, and anzac are all getting rich, then USA has more leeway to help out in Europe.

The only scenario where it makes any sense to me to break the pact is if the Russians mass Amur R1, and even then I’m inclined to think this is a bad idea.  If you want to delay Japan’s declaration until J3, then the best focus for Japan J1-J2 is on destroying China.

@Cow:

I recommend the Japan playbook.

I have the setup listed. It is not a total suicide per say. You are just playing from a round behind doing Russia DOW J1. J1 DOW everyone (don’t attack russia) just puts you a round ahead of J2 (but J1 is risky, but the reward is you kick off the war early and before the allies get their stuff together). J2 DOW is standard I feel.

Getting Siberia out of the way is not a bad decision. The allies still have to invest in shutting you down.

It is actually a good decision if you are not declaring war anyway so germany can do his sea lion thing.
~
If you are dead set on sea lion. I highly recommend smacking Siberia up for cash while you wait for round 3 anyway.

Plus it makes things easier on germany following sea lion… less russian mech for romania and all that yo.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the game plan for winning in a sea lion game is typically a pacific win via India and either Anzac or Hawaii.  The pac win happens because USA ends up investing 50% + of their income to retake London.  But destroying China is a big part of doing this, because if you don’t neuter/destroy China early, then you’ll have to fight them later to protect your coastal VCs, and if China is a monster, it will be a very costly fight.  So imho China rather than Siberia should be the initial goal in Sea Lion games.

@Vance:

I was suggesting to do the air strike like you said, and pull right out of China.  Let China go.  After that just focus on bugging UK Pacific and ANZAC but know that Japan will NOT be winning on the Pacific side.  I guess the idea was to help Germany win the game.

Japan will be hurting for cash in that scenario.  And China will get that Manch airbase.

If you only go for the win on one side of the board, then Allies can better pool their resources to stop you.  UKpac might be able to reinforce Russia via mech infs.  And UK and USA can fly in fighters to Moscow.

I don’t mind giving up one side of the board to go for the win on the other. However, if it’s blatantly obvious that that’s what you’re doing, then the US simply spends 100% of its income on the other board. That makes for a tough win.

The obstacle in a Europe win isn’t Moscow so much (and that’s really what you’re trying to work around by killing 18I and 2 AA). It’s that by the time Germany gets to and takes (and holds) Moscow and Stalingrad, they had better either already have Cairo or a solid Atlantic Wall or both. But neutering Japan means mechs and tanks driving west out of India, and the US putting the equivalent of Germany’s entire income into the Atlantic every turn.

The toughest go, as the Allies, I’ve had of it in Europe is when Japan is making 60+ and the US has to make sure the war isn’t lost in Sydney/Honolulu. If Japan starts throwing away pieces and position early in the game, and doesn’t get the IPC bump because of it, it makes life a lot simpler for the Allies.

If you want to win in Europe as the Axis AND involve Japan then Japan has to spend 3 turns posturing for a J4 India Crush, but instead of landing in India skip forward to Iraq.  Japan landing multiple TT in Iraq, followed by a move of Japanese fleet into the Med will help secure Egypt WAY earlier than anticipated WITH a sizeable fleet locking the Allies out of the Med.

This basically is the only reasonable contribution of units Japan can make to a European win for the Axis.

All other avenues require Japan to win the pacific or keep the US splitting resources between two theaters in order to allow Germany/Italy to secure the European theater.  The cost/benefit of Japan marching on Russia really doesn’t change much unless you suicide all your aircraft to soften Moscow which requires an AB in China and landing on a German stack past Moscow and even then the units you throw away in order to do so far exceeds the loss of the Russians for doing it.

Bottom line, Japan either wins the Pacific on its own, keeps the US sending IPC into the Pacific, or plays for Egypt and locks the Allies out of the Med which STILL requires Germany to be able to take Moscow on their own.

@Omega1759:

On Pacific, a combination of fighters / infantry on Japan is much cheaper defense than what the US needs to cause a lethal threat. A combination of planes / subs as a counterattack is much cheaper than defending against it. Japan can use land based planes to supplement their counterattacks. The US needs to hold zones / land which makes things a lot more difficult and costly.

You are SO right there. There have been a few times when I play Japan that I simply hold out against a US invasion. While the US may have trashed my fleet and is occupying SZ 6, he has to build a decent invasion force, which like you said has to be transports + infantry + artillery @ 14 IPCs per set. The US will be staging all this on Hawaii. He will bring up 3 more transports with 3 inf and 3 art then next turn I simply plop down another 6-8 infantry and stymie his invasion plan. His invasion fleet gets larger and larger while my infantry stack also keeps growing. Meanwhile, Germany is beating up Russia and closing on Moscow.

If the Japanese are forfeiting control of SZ6, how are you getting the income to keep plopping down these additional infantry?  Presumably you’ve lost all your non-Chinese income to Convoy attacks.

@knp7765:

You are SO right there. There have been a few times when I play Japan that I simply hold out against a US invasion. While the US may have trashed my fleet and is occupying SZ 6, he has to build a decent invasion force, which like you said has to be transports + infantry + artillery @ 14 IPCs per set. The US will be staging all this on Hawaii. He will bring up 3 more transports with 3 inf and 3 art then next turn I simply plop down another 6-8 infantry and stymie his invasion plan. His invasion fleet gets larger and larger while my infantry stack also keeps growing. Meanwhile, Germany is beating up Russia and closing on Moscow.

@Eqqman:

If the Japanese are forfeiting control of SZ6, how are you getting the income to keep plopping down these additional infantry?  Presumably you’ve lost all your non-Chinese income to Convoy attacks.

My thoughts as well.
If the IJN has been destroyed, then ANZAC and/or USA should be taking advantage by stationing submarines in convoy zones. The Japanese income would soon then become nothing, no need to attempt to stage an invasion.

@ch0senfktard:

@knp7765:

You are SO right there. There have been a few times when I play Japan that I simply hold out against a US invasion. While the US may have trashed my fleet and is occupying SZ 6, he has to build a decent invasion force, which like you said has to be transports + infantry + artillery @ 14 IPCs per set. The US will be staging all this on Hawaii. He will bring up 3 more transports with 3 inf and 3 art then next turn I simply plop down another 6-8 infantry and stymie his invasion plan. His invasion fleet gets larger and larger while my infantry stack also keeps growing. Meanwhile, Germany is beating up Russia and closing on Moscow.

@Eqqman:

If the Japanese are forfeiting control of SZ6, how are you getting the income to keep plopping down these additional infantry?  Presumably you’ve lost all your non-Chinese income to Convoy attacks.

My thoughts as well.
If the IJN has been destroyed, then ANZAC and/or USA should be taking advantage by stationing submarines in convoy zones. The Japanese income would soon then become nothing, no need to attempt to stage an invasion.

I’ve made this point before:  For the US it is economically more viable to just convoy all the Japanese gains than to invest in taking the land gains from them.  There comes a point where Japan’s gains become convoyed out and it cannot do anything to stop those convoys.  It starts with US subs and bombers to chase the Japanese fleet away from its industrial centers, and from that point its just a game of attrition where Japan has to spend 8 IPC on a DD vs the US 6 IPC on a SS to stop the convoy bleeding.

You can basically approach Japan like you do Italy and India - they are entirely convoy-able once you address their fleet - regardless of the cost (think UK1 sinking the Italian BB at the cost of their ships in the med).

Well when Japan puts units in siberia… it chases the russian units back… that is it… I don’t know what you expect.

@zhukov. You deal with china/ukpac/anzac later. It is a J3 dow, it sets japan back a round… but you dump guys from japan on J2 and J3 as well.