Japanese philosophy (video)

Great vids YG! I just watched this and the one for Germany. The four pillars are solid!
Your philosophy clearly builds off Shinto principles and a respect for the ancestors ;)

I think if people watch these and take some of the basic ideas to heart, beyond just memorizing openings, they’ll probably have a lot more success as Axis in the long run. The last two pillars especially, would hold for basically any board, not just G40. And the importance of the first two could be seen from the opposite perspective in a board like 42.2, where reclaiming the money islands or putting a wedge into China, can be sound principles for Allied KJF.

I like especially the discussion of “The Yoyo” and the cat and mouse, since I think a lot of players can get stuck managing that. Often times, its the desire of the Cat to just “go ahead kill the mouse!” rather than keeping it alive to toy with, that undoes things. So its really important I think, the idea of keeping the fleet consolidated and not moving anywhere unless you can cover it on counter, or until the final rounds endgame when income parity is less significant and taking VCs are the only thing that matters.

Again, nice work man

YG, very nice presentation. This is a sound Japanese strat/philosophy. I also like the more practicable approach of squeezing India, then going in for the kill with mech/air. This allows the Japanese Navy to patrol/blockade the South Pacific (income), and still yo-yo back to the Sea of Japan if needed (excellent).

I will say that if the Russians move 12 inf and AA guns to Amur R1, I would be really tempted to hit it J1. I see how this would really delay the Japanese advances and long term income goals in the S Pacific though (tying up ground units, air and transports). Generally if I’m going to hit the Russians I like to have some mech/air ready to chase down the Mongolians right after (so I guess a wait and see approach would be more applicable).

Many games see the Japanese waiting to attack the western allies until turn 3 or later. I share your opinion that this is wasted opportunity and income. I think it is defiantly worth it for a J1 or J2 attack. Your German counter part would generally prefer you to delay a bit, so a J2 attack might be the best option in an axis compromise lol.

With a J2 attack you will give up attacking the Brit BB, and the mini Philippine fleet, but you’ll probably be able to kill a couple UK/Anz transports used to activate the Dutch islands (and transported inf). You might still be able to kill the US ftr (Phil) depending on where it went US1 and your Japanese positioning. Also noted that the earlier you attack, the less likely you’ll expose your Japanese transports to counter attack by the west (transports are a huge part of any Japanese strat).

YG, just wondering you commented about the US at times kinda giving up in the Pacific because of early Japanese advances and income parity along with good defensive positioning and the ability to grow the Japanese navy (being a hard nut to crack). In this scenario the US would be looking to defend the 4th map (Hawaii/Sidney), while pushing hard into Europe.

Once you have taken India (maybe 6-7 turn) what is your next move. I know this leads to a lot of what if’s, just wondering if you stay more traditional on the Pac side, or if you wander over to the Euro side?

1. Do you go on the offensive against the US/Anz building navy now going for a Pac win (the 4th board).

2. Move ground/some air towards the center (Russia), engaging in scrimmages and taking more Russian income. Maybe do SBR runs on Moscow to help out Euro axis (who will be facing a two front war).

3. Continue your migration into the Mid East/Africa gobbling up more income while reducing the UK income (distracting UK forces). Maybe even sending some air/navy to aid Italy.

Looking forward to your other videos

Great work again, YG!

Not saying it is better but I think it’s worth mentioning anyway:
In my experience, building just 1 early factory and 1 late one in FIC (turn 5 or so) is enough to be able to do all that Japan needs to do in Asia. Destroy China completely, keep India isolated (in check) without the ability to produce and destroy it after you’re done with China. This keeps India alive longer but that’s nothing to worry about: their ability to build units is reduced to nothing anyway.
The income Japan itself misses out by not occupying Calcutta by ~J6 is gained from attacking Russia instead as a standard move. No matter what they do with their Siberians, IJA is stronger and able to push all the way towards Moscow, gaining 12-14 IPCS off of Russia per turn. So 2ICs max should get Japan into India, destroy China completely and take all Russian territories east of Moscow. Ofc, if you want more forces to do this, you need more ICs but IMHO this is overkill.

Executed the right way, Germany + Japan destroy the economies of both Russia and India without taking them early game. Late game sees allies with an economy of max 140 (ish) IPCs and the axis with 180IPCs minimum… Worth a try, I’d say.

@WB:
I have experienced that a Japanese ‘waiting’ is not wasted at all  :-D!
Surprisingly, it comes down to neither good nor bad economy-wise if they wait. Because long term effects equalize matters: USA looses bonus income (40IPCs), ANZAC + UK win about 60IPCs (in total combined, for controlling the DEI early) and Japan roughly wins (!) 60IPCs in the long term (_extra gains in Russia over 10 turns outweigh early Japanese abscence in the DEI etc., which should be only 2 turns). Not controlling Calcutta for an additional 4 (ish) turns roughly costs Japan 40IPCs. Net economical effect over the course of 10 turns: nada.

Which leaves only the strategical differences for Japan to consider a J1 or J4 (or anything in between).
AFAICS: J4 leaves the US forces dispositioned (especially in the Atlantic), but the UK BB escapes. J1 obviously grabs Calcutta about 4 turns faster but leaves Russia stronger. So I believe a J4 definately has its advantages, depending on the Japanese long term plans. In fact, a J4 is preferred if Germany wants to make Europe its own sandbox where no Americans are allowed in…

EDIT: Underscored wat I edited._

@Young:

Hey everyone, here’s my YouTube video explaining how I like to play Japan… hope you like it.

Good video, and generally speaking the 4 pillars are all key points that need consideration in the overall Japanese strategy in most games. However, I don’t see how a J1 attack on the US and Britain can be anything but an overall losing strategy for the Axis, unless the Allies play into your hand and hurt themselves.

The first point, is that when Japan’s turn starts, the Axis will generally have around 100-106 IPCs (depending on G1, but assuming that Germany has taken France) whereas the Allies will have 156 IPCs, for an income disparity of 50-56 IPCs. If Japan does an opening move along the lines of what you have done in this video, then Japan gets themselves an additional (approx.) 14 IPCs from new territories, but will gain no NOs, and will lose their 10 IPC NO from not being at war with the US or Britain, for a net gain of 4 IPCs (1 more than they would have had if they had not DoW and simply attacked China). Meanwhile, the US gains an additional 20 IPCs in cash for having all their NOs except Philippines, and additionally get their (inevitable) 60 IPC worth of converting their Minor Industrial Complexes to Major on their 1st turn instead of their 3rd or 4th. Additionally, although the UK will not get their NO in the Pacific because of Kwangtung, and therefore be down 7 IPCs (Kwangtung and Borneo), ANZAC will enter the war and gain their additional 10 IPCs income for NO at the end of their turn.

So it is basically a wash for Japan in terms of their IPC income for turn 1 for declaring war vs not, but for the Allies it is an income boon: +20 IPCs for the USA, +10 IPCs for Anzac for NOs, for the loss of 9 IPCs in territory (not counting the American NO of Philippines since they would not have had this income had Japan not declared war, and not counting the 2 IPCs for French Indo China since these are not earned assuming Germany took France on G1) and that totals out to a 21 IPC income gain for the turn. This takes the Allies total income disparity from 50-56 IPCs at the start of Japan’s J1 turn to around 71-77 after it. Compare this to a turn 3 attack from both European and Pacific Axis powers positioned to as many of their own and Allied NOs as possible, where the Axis can actually almost close the income gap completely, if not have a money advantage for a few turns.

Unit IPC value is a different story, as it is a clear win for Japan. Certainly the taking of the British battleship in sz37 for the loss of a cruiser is an 8 IPC differential, and the taking of the Philippines (-30 IPCs in units for the USA)  for the loss of 2-3 infantry (- 9 IPCs for Japan) is a strong differential of 21 IPCs in Japan’s favor, for a total of about a 29 IPC unit differential in Japan’s favor is a positive thing. However that is a one time gain, and at the end of the turn Japan has given the Allies an additional 21 IPC income for the gain of 29 IPCs in units. An IPC victory for turn 1 only, and for ever turn thereafter a massive IPC gain for the Allies. Can this actually be worth it?

What I have outlined so far are the tactical outcomes of a J1 DoW as outlined in your video and I have shown how it is only a minor Japan tactical victory. Strategically, however, it is a massive win for the Allies as long as they take advantage of the gift Japan has provided in terms of the US now having Major Industrial Complexes and being able to go to war on their first turn. The implications of this gift is not immediately so important in the Pacific as they are in Europe for the following reasons, however, there are also big strategic advantages for the Allies in the Pacific which will be outlined after the European advantages which are described here:

1. J1 DoW allows Britain to be extremely aggressive with its airforce and Mediterranean fleet on it’s first turn. Britain can be willing to go into an even or losing Taranto raid, and kill the destroyer and transport in sz just to inflict as much damage as possible on Italy. Britain can also use its transport in the Mediterranean to attack Greece with 1 artillery, or even 1 inf 1 art. It can even recklessly attack Tobruk with everything but the infantry and artillery in Egypt, and not care about whether or not it loses the fight as long as it takes 2-3 infantry. The reason being, with the US now in the war, Gibraltar can now be easily defended with the help of the US (and possibly even Britain depending on whether or not they are threatened by Sea Lion) on turn 1. Without Gibraltor, with only 10 IPCs, and no capital ships to build a fleet around, Italy has no hope of controlling the Mediterranean (it is possible depending if/how much of the British fleet is left in the Adriatic, that Italy might not even be able to destroy the French Fleet in the Med). An Italy that cannot control the Med can also not pressure the British in Africa or the Middle East, and now becomes only land support for the Germans, while guaranteeing the British their full 29 IPCs per turn + their 5 IPC NO = 34 IPCs.

2. Britain’s only real concern with regards to becoming immediately aggressive on turn 1 in Europe is the threat of a Sea Lion on G2. So really, if you are Britain in Europe, just don’t lose London on G2, whatever that means in terms of unit purchases and sacrificing of fleet/air force via scrambles/etc. By G3 Britain will be untouchable and the US will be able in position to assault the Western Front.

3. With the European Axis a non-factor to non-existent by turn 2 - turn 3 in Africa, and with Britain in Europe getting a minimum of their full 34 IPCs per turn, and Italy/Germany getting almost none of their NOs, the South African factory can start to produce Navy to contest with the Japanese in the Indian Ocean. This will be dependent on how Germany positions itself (i.e. is it aggressive/defensive? did it G1 DoW on Russia?), but ultimately, with the US at DoW on its first turn, a Germany that has done a G1 DoW on Russia will have to appeal to the mightiest of Dice Gods for a victory. The likeliest (or at least most odds-on) scenario is that European Axis will immediately have to go into relative defense and do whatever they can to buy time for Japan to find their victory in the Pacific. However, at this point, with Britain, ANZAC and the US now into the war, Japan’s early tactical advantages should be able to be quickly wiped out and a victory in the Pacific made impossible. Continue reading:

Allied Strategic Gains in the Pacific from a J1 DoW:

1. Although in a J1 DoW, I generally think that the US should turn the majority of their resources to Europe, they can still impact and grind the Japanese in the Pacific to slow them down and at the very least make a few changes in their buying decision that will negatively impact Japan’s attempt to gain quick military and economic control of SW Asia. Also, from a more tactical perspective, I strongly question the ability of a Japan J1 DoW as shown in this video (with a focus on India, China and the “money islands”) being able to force the Americans into a “yo-yo” between the Hawaiian Islands and New South Wales. The reason being that, with only 3 transports at the start of J2, Japan cannot threaten ANZAC’s capital, regardless of help from the US or not (especially with the gift of an additional 10 IPCs that Japan has donated to ANZAC through their J1 DoW). So the US can ignore having to defend ANZAC and focus on stalling the Japanese push into SW Asia, whatever that means in the given game you are playing.

2. A J1 DoW in the Pacific provides Britain and ANZAC with options depending on how the rest of the game is unfolding. An immediate Japanese factory on the mainland, as well as the aggressive move west towards India should tell any respectable Britain player that India and China are the targets. Again, depending on the rest of the board, ANZAC and Britain should be able to figure out how to best spend their resources, given that it is unlikely a defence of India will be possible. For ANZAC, strategic options of  J1 DoW include sending their transport east to take Brazil and do some work to ensure the fall of the European Axis more quickly while building a fleet with capital ships to become a nuisance for Japan in the Pacific, or working with Britain in the Pacific to slow down the capture of the ‘money islands’ by Japan, and still building their fleet up enough to become an issue for Japan. Alternatively, should Japan posture to take NSW, they may have to purchase some units in defence, but this is unlikely to be a possibility.

Let me wrap up by saying I’m surprised that the J1 DoW you have put together has led to victories for you by describing what my counter would be to any such move.

First, because through this J1 DoW, you would actually be massively widening the income disparity between Axis and Allies (in the favor of the Allies as described above) in exchange for limited tactical gains, I would realize that the Allies are in the position to maintain a large game-long income advantage, and that all that would need to be done to assure the Allied victory is prevent a sharp and fast victory from the Axis. Given the immediate entry of the US into the war and the support that they would bring form turn one, I would play extremely aggressively against the Axis in Europe, with the only defensive consideration being a G2 Sea Lion (if Germany has postured themselves to do this). I have outlined this above. Ultimately, any smart Allies player would ensure that Italy is removed from the Mediterranean and the European Axis are not a threat in Africa. With the US immediately in the war, I don’t see any way (apart from Godlike dice-rolling) that Italy could carve anything out in Africa.

Second, from a strategic perspective in the Pacific, with Britain, China, and Anzac I would only try to slow the advance and income gains of Japan, even if that meant sacrificing units or taking losing battles. Ultimately, I know that even if/once Japan takes India and China, the overall income differential will be strongly in the Allies favor. Also from a strategic perspective, Japan cannot take India and China with 2 factories on the mainland, while maintaining naval superiority in the Pacific. As such, it is difficult to see how Japan could get their 6 victory cities.

From a tactical perspective, with a focus on my overall strategy, I would do the following in response to the posted video for J1 DoW.

1. Send my destroyer from sz37 to kill the loan Japanese transport outside Borneo in sz39. Yes, the destroyer will die next turn, making this a 1 IPC victory in units for Japan, but what it will guarantee is that Japan can now not take all 4 of the money islands on J2 (with only 2 remaining transports). Additionally, I would strongly consider taking Java with a TT and two British Infantry from India, and reinforcing with 2 infantry (via their TT) and all 3 fighters from ANZAC. Ultimately, these units would be killed and Java taken, but it would take an otherwise easy Japanese venture for the money islands and bonus NO 5 IPCs, and turn it into a commitment of time, resources and space, all while slowing down the earliest point at which Japan can secure the money islands. Even if it comes as a net loss of 40 IPCs to Britain and ANZAC, the massive income differential in favor of the Allies and presence of the US in the war more than compensates for this. All the while, Japan might now take one additional turn before it can take India, or be out of position and unable to make the US ‘yo-yo’ if it needs to commit airplanes and navy in order to take the money islands. Again, this latter item I discussed would be a consideration depending on the entire board, but certainly if Europe was looking to be on lockdown for the Allies, I would do it.

2. Evaluate the situation and focus my 17 IPCs to start building a counterattack force, with no intention of strongly defending India (especially if Japan were to strategically bomb it into the ground…remember, capturing an industrial complex does not remove the damage done to it. If the Calcutta industrial complex had 20 damage as your video recommends, Japan would need to spend 11 IPCs before it can produce 1 unit after it has taken the complex). Likely, I would just stock up on infantry, and then provide air support with Britain’s airforce in the Med, or through production of British planes in South Africa. In any case, on J3 or J4 when Japan has positioned itself to capture India, I would retreat most of my defensive force, and all of my airforce, as there would be no way to stop India’s collapse, and play cat and mouse with my ground forces and airforce to grind Japan down (or at least make them use as many resources as possible to maintain India) as best as possible while minimizing British casualties in defensive positions.

3. Taranto Raid from Britain, with reckless abandon. It doesn’t matter if Britain roles poorly. Now that the US is in the war and the Allied income is up around 70+ compared to the Axis, Britain can afford to lose their Med navy and some planes at the expense of crippling Italy.

4. Use 1 inf and 1 art from Egypt to invade Greece in non-com. This puts 6 allied land units on the European mainland, forcing the Axis to attack in force, or ignore at the expense of having Britain back it up with some air units in subsequent turns. Again, it is irrelevant if the British transport is sunk for nothing (in fact, the 12 IPCs from the invasion of Greece would still leave them at a +5 overall after their transport is sunk).

5. Transport an infantry and artillery from Eastern United States, as well as fly a fighter, over to Gibraltor, making it a horrible fight for Italy and ensuring immediate access for the Allies to the Mediterranean.

6. Build an Aircraft Carrier in South Africa, and potentially other units, if Britain is free from Sea Lion on G2. Start building up a naval force to grind some losses from Japan as they sweep over SW Asia - force Japan to have to deal with an ANZAC, US and British fleet in the Pacific!

Really, I would love to see a J1 DoW as the Allies one day as (assuming Allies don’t play directly into Japan’s hand) it almost seems impossible with that immediate income disparity, assistance from the USA,  and the now almost thoughtless turn 1 destruction of Italy’s Mediterranean forces, that the Axis can accomplish anything more than 4 victory cities in the Pacific. Italy needs at least 2 turns to shore up the Mediterranean before it can start to have an impact on the British economy, and for them to duly seal off the Mediterranean from an immediate Allied push. Bringing the US into the war or Turn 1 makes this impossible, and essentially frees Britain from having to use IPCs and unit resources to defend Africa.

What does your opponent do that allows your J1 DoW strategy to be successful? I can only imagine that they don’t sacrifice units and IPCs to slow down your takeover of the money islands to J3 or J4, and that they actually try to defend India when you finally attack, rather than backing out and leaving a couple infantry there and preparing for a counter-attack, or a cat and mouse game through the Middle East with their remaining units. I can also only guess that your opponent is using the majority of his US IPCs to building a Pacific fleet, rather than immediately crippling the European Axis Powers, and slowly, but decisively, grinding down the Japanese in the Pacific with the help of ANZAC.

@Putzky:

Unit IPC value is a different story, as it is a clear win for Japan. Certainly the taking of the British battleship in sz37 for the loss of a cruiser is an 8 IPC differential, and the taking of the Philippines (-30 IPCs in units for the USA)  for the loss of 2-3 infantry (- 9 IPCs for Japan) is a strong differential of 21 IPCs in Japan’s favor, for a total of about a 29 IPC unit differential in Japan’s favor is a positive thing. However that is a one time gain, and at the end of the turn Japan has given the Allies an additional 21 IPC income for the gain of 29 IPCs in units. An IPC victory for turn 1 only, and for ever turn thereafter a massive IPC gain for the Allies. Can this actually be worth it?

Actually, the IPC gain for the allies also only lasts for 1 or 2 turns (compared to a J2 or J3 attack). The US gets an extra 20 or 40 IPCs than in a J2 or J3 attack, and gets factory upgrades sooner. 20 IPCs for the US is actually as valuable as you may think, since it’s used very far away and will take a few turns to be useful. Meanwhile, Japan can kill units that are in a position to threaten it immediately. Of course, Germany is threatened a bit more, but if Germany is prepared and knows of your plans, they can probably survive pretty well. Germany can still threaten Sea Lion, especially if the UK goes for Italy too hard and tries building in Africa, for example.

2. Evaluate the situation and focus my 17 IPCs to start building a counterattack force, with no intention of strongly defending India (especially if Japan were to strategically bomb it into the ground…remember, capturing an industrial complex does not remove the damage done to it. If the Calcutta industrial complex had 20 damage as your video recommends, Japan would need to spend 11 IPCs before it can produce 1 unit after it has taken the complex).

When Japan captures India, the factory is downgraded to a minor, so it will only have 6 damage to repar, before Japan can pump out 3 units each turn.

In all honesty, Sealion depends more on G1 and UK1 than whether Japan declares or not…  London can still fall if he goes too aggressive.

As for the pac, make sure u count the allied ipc loss for not being able to claim any of the islands cost-effectively and the big advantage in position Japan will have.  If a J1 DoW is executed right, there should be no lone Japanese transports.

The US would be in a tricky spot since it has to deal with a potential Sealion, and an explosive Japan.  There is no reason why Japan should not be in the mid to upper 60s by turn 2.  With the 6 transports and a factory in FIC, India would be in trouble.  If it moved out passed burma, it can be flanked and India will likely fall.

Italy will be able to maintain some position in africa if Torburk survived, otherwise, it can work on cleaning up russians as they run in to europe.

All in all, Grasshoppers J1 may have flaws, but it does not mean that the concept of a J1 declaration is fundamentally flawed.

I also love doing a bovine J1.  The economic gains and more than make up for the losses, as long as I don’t massively fail with the dice.  The main weakness seems to be in Yunnan.  It is particularly bad if Russia moves their fast movers to Sikang on R1 along with plane(s) to Volgograd.  In such a case, China can reclaim Yunnan on turn 1 and Russia can strongly reinforce it on R2.  Japan then cannot reclaim Yunnan on J2 unless they are willing to sacrifice a bunch of planes.  India might be able to send some additional reinforcements on their turn, making the situation even tougher on J3.  Obviously China can’t hold out for too many rounds, but keeping the Burma road open for a couple more rounds makes a big difference in the game.  China can end up with a good number of artillery.  In such a situation Japan has to be very careful when approaching the Chinese stack in the mid-game turns.

If Japan chooses not to do J1, Russia can retreat their fast movers back home on R2.  They usually can’t do anything much with those units on R2 anyway, so it has become my standard play for Allies.

Thoughts?

@ghr2:

In all honesty, Sealion depends more on G1 and UK1 than whether Japan declares or not…  London can still fall if he goes too aggressive.

As for the pac, make sure u count the allied ipc loss for not being able to claim any of the islands cost-effectively and the big advantage in position Japan will have.  If a J1 DoW is executed right, there should be no lone Japanese transports.

The US would be in a tricky spot since it has to deal with a potential Sealion, and an explosive Japan.  There is no reason why Japan should not be in the mid to upper 60s by turn 2.  With the 6 transports and a factory in FIC, India would be in trouble.  If it moved out passed burma, it can be flanked and India will likely fall.

Italy will be able to maintain some position in africa if Torburk survived, otherwise, it can work on cleaning up russians as they run in to europe.

All in all, Grasshoppers J1 may have flaws, but it does not mean that the concept of a J1 declaration is fundamentally flawed.

The whole point I made about Sea Lion is that, no matter what the J1 DoW looks like, all Britain has to do is make sure that Sea Lion doesn’t happen on G2 and the European Axis is doomed. Why would any British player allow London to be in a position to be taken on G2?

Really, the biggest hole in any J1 DoW is that, no matter what the immediate tactical gains are for Japan in the Pacific (and I would personally argue that they can’t be that huge with only 3 Japanese transports to start and no big navies worth big $ to assault), there are 3 negative strategic consequences that make it wildly favor the Allies:

1. bringing the US into the war on their first turn is just gifting the Allies immediate control of the Mediterranean and Africa, thereby ensuring Britain - UK’s full IPC income for the next 5-6 turns at least as Africa cannot be touched by the European Axis, and preventing Italy from getting any of their NOs. The European win will no longer be a strategic option for the Axis.

2. it more or less guarantees that the Allies will have superior income from start to finish of the game

3. with the European Axis in an immediate defensive position (or alternatively, a futile aggressive position moving East to Moscow), Japan will not have the space it needs to be able to stay in control of the Pacific to get the 6 victory cities for the win

@Putzky:

@ghr2:

In all honesty, Sealion depends more on G1 and UK1 than whether Japan declares or not…  London can still fall if he goes too aggressive.

As for the pac, make sure u count the allied ipc loss for not being able to claim any of the islands cost-effectively and the big advantage in position Japan will have.  If a J1 DoW is executed right, there should be no lone Japanese transports.

The US would be in a tricky spot since it has to deal with a potential Sealion, and an explosive Japan.  There is no reason why Japan should not be in the mid to upper 60s by turn 2.  With the 6 transports and a factory in FIC, India would be in trouble.  If it moved out passed burma, it can be flanked and India will likely fall.

Italy will be able to maintain some position in africa if Torburk survived, otherwise, it can work on cleaning up russians as they run in to europe.

All in all, Grasshoppers J1 may have flaws, but it does not mean that the concept of a J1 declaration is fundamentally flawed.

The whole point I made about Sea Lion is that, no matter what the J1 DoW looks like, all Britain has to do is make sure that Sea Lion doesn’t happen on G2 and the European Axis is doomed. Why would any British player allow London to be in a position to be taken on G2?

Really, the biggest hole in any J1 DoW is that, no matter what the immediate tactical gains are for Japan in the Pacific (and I would personally argue that they can’t be that huge with only 3 Japanese transports to start and no big navies worth big $ to assault), there are 3 negative strategic consequences that make it wildly favor the Allies:

1. bringing the US into the war on their first turn is just gifting the Allies immediate control of the Mediterranean and Africa, thereby ensuring Britain - UK’s full IPC income for the next 5-6 turns at least as Africa cannot be touched by the European Axis, and preventing Italy from getting any of their NOs. The European win will no longer be a strategic option for the Axis.

2. it more or less guarantees that the Allies will have superior income from start to finish of the game

3. with the European Axis in an immediate defensive position (or alternatively, a futile aggressive position moving East to Moscow), Japan will not have the space it needs to be able to stay in control of the Pacific to get the 6 victory cities for the win

I was referring to a G3 Sea lion.  If America dumps heavy into the Atlantic, then sure, Sea lion is off the table and Italy will lose the med in a few turns.  But this does not prevent Germany from exploding into Russia like it would usually do since it takes a rather large amount of US investment to get an army in position to really hurt Germany economically.  Germany only needs to worry about counter-attacking a couple key territories and to keep Italy from falling.  Everything else can go through southern Russia and push him into the 60s and 70s by turn 5 or 6.

Japan should have control of Malaya and all of the islands by turn 3, if he does it right.  While the transports he made will be in position to smack India if the Brits get too greedy.  I honestly don’t see how India lives past turn 4 if Japan positions right, unless it gets massive aid from everyone.  Once it falls, Japan can focus almost completely on ship building and finishing off china.

I hardly see how J1 is a assured loss for the Axis.  In league play, the Axis wins about half the time even when spotting the Allies 13-20 production units before the game starts.  With good dice rolling, J1 is a net benefit to Japan, and with bad dice rolling, it is a net negative.  Either way, with good game play the Axis has a fair chance of winning.

It seems that very few people choose to do J1 in League matches.  Perhaps the reason is the infantry that people usually get in New Guinea to begin the game.  That gives them a 5 PU bonus and frees up a transport for mischief.

Nice write-up Putzky.

3. with the European Axis in an immediate defensive position (or alternatively, a futile aggressive position moving East to Moscow), Japan will not have the space it needs to be able to stay in control of the Pacific to get the 6 victory cities for the win

sounds good in theory, but actually the hardest Axis strategy to beat is when they go for the Eurasia win and don’t worry about VCs.  Even if Italy is throttled in the Med by UK/USA it’s very difficult for Allies to save Moscow and simultaneously prevent Japan from securing the Pacific win.  Even if the Allies can save Moscow, the Axis can besiege Moscow and be in a good position to win the economic war.

I favor J1 and usually play it, though I admit J2 certainly gives J1 a run for its money.  It’s true a J1 involves some moderate risk at Yunnan (as well as sz 37, Hunan, and Philippines) in a dice game.

If I recall, YG was once a J1 skeptic (like you) but changed his view when he tried it out a few times.

When considering the matter from an IPC perspective (and that is not the only perspective, but a useful one), make sure you are taking into account all of the Allied units that are destroyed Turn 1.  British BB, Ami dd/ss, 2 inf fig in Phi.  The naval units get away if you don’t attack J1.  Also take into account the +7 from Borneo and Kwangtung and the corresponding -7 on the UK turn.  Think of the advantage of securing Phi, Bor, Fic, and Kwa (the last 2 being good IC spots) on J1.  Now your transports are freed up to secure more strategic targets on the next turn.  If UK or Anzac want islands, then they’ll have to sacrifice transports.

I did all the math one time and I found J1 and J2 very close to even from an IPC perspective.

So the decision comes down to the strategic advantages of J1 compared to the strategic disadvantages of USA entry into the Battle of the Atlantic.  If the J1 is executed correctly, then Japan is on their way to a quick Pacific victory, and USA will have no choice but to go 80%+ Pacific to turn the tide.  Which means the USA does not have the resources to threaten Germany/Italy.

@Zhukov44:

Nice write-up Putzky.

3. with the European Axis in an immediate defensive position (or alternatively, a futile aggressive position moving East to Moscow), Japan will not have the space it needs to be able to stay in control of the Pacific to get the 6 victory cities for the win

sounds good in theory, but actually the hardest Axis strategy to beat is when they go for the Eurasia win and don’t worry about VCs.  Even if Italy is throttled in the Med by UK/USA it’s very difficult for Allies to save Moscow and simultaneously prevent Japan from securing the Pacific win.  Even if the Allies can save Moscow, the Axis can besiege Moscow and be in a good position to win the economic war.

I favor J1 and usually play it, though I admit J2 certainly gives J1 a run for its money.  It’s true a J1 involves some moderate risk at Yunnan (as well as sz 37, Hunan, and Philippines) in a dice game.

If I recall, YG was once a J1 skeptic (like you) but changed his view when he tried it out a few times.

When considering the matter from an IPC perspective (and that is not the only perspective, but a useful one), make sure you are taking into account all of the Allied units that are destroyed Turn 1.  British BB, Ami dd/ss, 2 inf fig in Phi.  The naval units get away if you don’t attack J1.  Also take into account the +7 from Borneo and Kwangtung and the corresponding -7 on the UK turn.  Think of the advantage of securing Phi, Bor, Fic, and Kwa (the last 2 being good IC spots) on J1.  Now your transports are freed up to secure more strategic targets on the next turn.  If UK or Anzac want islands, then they’ll have to sacrifice transports.

I did all the math one time and I found J1 and J2 very close to even from an IPC perspective.

So the decision comes down to the strategic advantages of J1 compared to the strategic disadvantages of USA entry into the Battle of the Atlantic.  If the J1 is executed correctly, then Japan is on their way to a quick Pacific victory, and USA will have no choice but to go 80%+ Pacific to turn the tide.  Which means the USA does not have the resources to threaten Germany/Italy.

Well said sir.

Like it is said before,
I find a J2 and J1 to be very close in economic balance. Taken everything together, from simple IPC-value of territories gained/lost, to NOs and PUs (value of units lost in the battles) lost or gained. I do find J1 to be more difficult and dangerous: Japan has a shortage of land units around Yunnan and they can make more mistakes that seem minor but are not. For example, if Japan takes their CA as loss if the BB in SZ37 scores a hit, the UK can be aggressive (attacking FIC) and Japan looses its offensive initiative early already, due to the mentioned lack of troops. I learned this the hard way the first time I tried a J1 ;-): Japan must take an air loss here. Just a small example.

But enough little details. If Japan knows what to avoid, they can make a J1 as good as J2 no problem. I consider it unwanted however, if my Japanese partner always wants to do J1 and does not want to do, or know how to do a J2. Or even a J3/J4DOW. If we are assuming no mistakes fom any Major power and friendly dice for all, Germany looses the option of doing SL with a J1DOW and their Barbarossa may be halted very soon as well, if the USA puts a little effort into the Atlantic (but never enough to loose the Pacific war!).
Global strategies are very situational and even Japan and Germany should at least make a plan together. If the axis want to try an economic victory, a J1 is not the optimal choice. If Germany wants to keep the threat of a SL open for a while (for whatever reason), J1 is far from optimal. And so on and etc. etc.

So, I’d say the DOW J1/2/3/4 really depends on what strategy Germany and Japan have agreed upon, and what they can see is the allied reaction to their plans.
A J4DOW can even be more profitable to Japan (and the axis as a whole) if they do it right, even to the balance of economy… There are certain conditions that must be met, ofc, but Japan can spot them in the early turns.

I consider it a strong player’s mark; the ability to know when to best do the JDOW considering the overall axis strategy and allied responses. And that is not always a J1. Well, unless the axis never try a different strategy together. Which play into the allied hands because you 'll become too predictable ;-).
J1 is as strong as any without a doubt, but its biggest strategical downside is that it gives away Axis intentions early and even takes away certain axis threats that would otherwise remain in place, requiring more cautious play from the allies.

J1 is as strong as any without a doubt, but its biggest strategical downside is that it gives away Axis intentions early and even takes away certain axis threats that would otherwise remain in place, requiring more cautious play from the allies.

True, but I would say J1 is at least as optimal as J2 if Axis is going for economic victory because it might speed up the conquest of Eurasia.

I’d argue that J3 is economically inferior (for Japan) to J1/J2 but can be appropriate if Germany is undertaking some kind of offensive against UK in the Atlantic region.

Another reason to like J2 is sometimes Japan can set up traps on J2 if the Allied player makes a mistake turn 1.  But I like to assume that my opponent will make no mistakes, which is part of why I’ve been more interested in J1.

@Zhukov44:

J1 is as strong as any without a doubt, but its biggest strategical downside is that it gives away Axis intentions early and even takes away certain axis threats that would otherwise remain in place, requiring more cautious play from the allies.

True, but I would say J1 is at least as optimal as J2 if Axis is going for economic victory because it might speed up the conquest of Eurasia.

I’d argue that J3 is economically inferior (for Japan) to J1/J2 but can be appropriate if Germany is undertaking some kind of offensive against UK in the Atlantic region.

Another reason to like J2 is sometimes Japan can set up traps on J2 if the Allied player makes a mistake turn 1.  But I like to assume that my opponent will make no mistakes, which is part of why I’ve been more interested in J1.

J3 is not so bad if the allies position themselves poorly in the Pac.

Young Grasshopper, love the videos BTW, but I’m curious as what you do with the carrier you leave off the coast of the Caroline islands? Is it bait for the U.S. to go down there? Or do you move it in non-combat? If anyone else knows what is done please let me know.
Cheers