The Tokyo BLITZ

Harassing Tokyo itself is hard, but who knows what can be done with so much (if not all) US resources going into the Pacific.
I must admit I have not tried any ‘true’ KJF strategies, but I have given it some thoughts over time.
Just imagine: fully convoying SZ6 + SBRing Tokyo every turn, that is as good as ridding Japan of the entire DEI (economy wise), only by occupying SZ6. IF it can be done.
I think it can be done but the Euro-front will be stripped of US involvement for at least 6 turns so you have to be really confident about how things are going over there without the USA. Once a foothold is established in Korea, you could build a NB there for an emergency sortie if necessary.

The alternative is ofc, to face (kill if possible) the IJN wherever it may try to hide and take the DEI + Philippines, Malaya, Shan State, FIC and Burma (Hong Kong might be a bridge too far) in the process.

Minimal commitment in Europe could work, but also could not, depending on the axis strategy. So if you decide to KJF, just make sure that the resources you DO spend in Europe are not wasted.

@Gargantua:

Hard to comment on this if I can’t see how many boats/planes japan as US have.

I would think that the best way J can counter would be to get: infantry heavy buys for Tokyo of needed, block & deadzone sz 6, and get a decent force into manch to counter a korea.  Or, just split your fleet and build new boats up north while rolling on to india.  If the US is up north, then no one is really threatening the dutch islands, so Japan can safely maintain his income while pressing on India hard.  Since Japan normally makes 60+, it does not seem that difficult to keep the US fleet at bay and work his way to India.

This would seem to work better in a KJF where u have russia + india navy to help pick apart Japan’s navy, but when Japan has no real threats, it does not seem practical to move the US so far out of position.

This is all speculative theory, and your post proves the point.  We WANT Japan spending 60 a turn vs USA, instead of buying factories and building ground units.  We want them to build up a useless stack in Tokyo, and delay their advance. That is the objective.

I would hope japan uses several tactics to counter, and I also hope none of them are cheap lol.

Axis and Allies is about economics, and units in the right positions, produce economic gains.  The more distraction USA can place, and the more it can draw from the front, the more counties like Ind/ANZAC/China can matter, as now they face 10, 20 or 30 IPC’s a turn instead of up to the full 70 Japan can sometimes earn.

It’s all about drawing Japan into a game of chicken, and tying up all their planes and equipment, whilst the allies still have control of their strategic cities, and economic advantage.

Great discussion guys! More thoughts please!

Here is the thing:

1.  Japan can usually keep up in the naval race with the US and push towards India, it does not require as much as you think.

2.  Virtually all of your goals for the US can be accomplished if the US stacked Caroline or Queens, this has the added bonus of keeping ANZAC relevant and trade opportunities.

3.  The biggest issue is that if the US is spending super heavy on Japan, and “distracts” him, since Japan can usually keep up with the US, it ends up being a big money drain for the US.  In other words, the US is the one being distracted.  As long as Japan does not get economically crippled and can maintain with a heavy Pac US, then this gives Germany free rein to starve and kill off Russia then quickly roll over UK resistance since the US won’t have enough in the Atlantic to stop him.

Essentially, Japan has the muscle to keep the US out of Germany’s way or win on it’s own, depending on where the US decides to focus.

@Gargantua:

As for Kamikazes I tend to ignore them. Thy can not be used when USA attacks one of the mentioned sea zones, and typically the defender only gets 2 hits.   It’s a marginal fear that should be measured but generally ignored.

I agree, and the best way to eliminate that marginal fear anyways, is to force the expenditure of said units.

@Gargantua:

Apologies, my post should have said “can only” be used when USA attacks.

Interesting thoughts GHR2. To each their own.  I don’t see Anzac being relevant at all when facing the entire IJN.  Other than transport suicides to take DEI locations.

Overall, relying on just delaying an axis power on one side or the other can back fire very easily.  You can’t afford to have the US stuck on one side all game.

any thoughts on why this is good/interesting/horrendously-terrible

I don’t think the blitz can hurt Japan in turns 2-3 and benefit Allies accounting for the Europe. After that this is a conditional strategy. The reason is Axis is  ganerally able to get 8 VC in Europe by turn 10 when US 90% busy with Pacific even if Japan makes low income. The conditions are: delay with taking Moscow (depands on what is left from G1 battles, G1-3 buy, DOW Rus turn, Italy, and luck after all);  UK is HEAVY on the Mediterranean - not necessary successful, another story if builds IC early, helps Rus, and absorbs Ger income; ANZAC is safe.
Tokio blitz might be very interesting in turns 4-5 or later when Japan is one step from India, the fleet is between sz36-39, air is partially lost and partialy out of the sz6 range, no IC in Manchuria,  and when US  got 3-4 ACs and enough air. I agree it can help India.I’d say ftr/TT per turn plus one time AC & DD is the US must to Europe first turns. It takes about 25% from the bank.

I don’t think the sz7 part works.

I guess Japan could simply buy 1-2 carriers and US does not have an attack on sz6 against all that air plus Kami.

In return the US fleet is not safe in sz7 once Japan as most of his air in range.
US cannot easily tip its carriers in addition and with no harbour they might either being forced to retreat or to have a stalemate.

I guess a stalemate in sz7 is way worse than a stalemate e.g. Caro vs Phillipines. In the latter scenario US can team up and keep Japan busy to protect the money islands.

In sz7 Japan does not even have to invest in blockers and has no competition for the money islands.

As ME1945 stated, I guess such a move is to be used as a surprise strike in case the Japanese brought their fleet out of position. However in that case I think a harbour at midway is still better (assuming Japan does not have enough blockers in range)

I had a strategy of building a naval base on Midway and basing my fleet there for a while.  It has some advantages on paper - very difficult to block, Bombers launched from there can attack Tokyo factories or support a landing in Japan, plus all your planes on the carriers and such can support landings as well.

In practice, it’s never worked very well.  Japan tends to ignore the fleet and focus southward, or Germany takes advantage of the USA’s pacific focus to wreak havoc on Russia.

@Shin:

I had a strategy of building a naval base on Midway and basing my fleet there for a while.  It has some advantages on paper - very difficult to block, Bombers launched from there can attack Tokyo factories or support a landing in Japan, plus all your planes on the carriers and such can support landings as well.

In practice, it’s never worked very well.  Japan tends to ignore the fleet and focus southward, or Germany takes advantage of the USA’s pacific focus to wreak havoc on Russia.

I have tried a similar tactic where I base my navy in sz 8 with airbase and navy base at aleution island. I have similar experinces, but the problem might be you start beeing agreesive too early with the USA