Japanese philosophy (video)

@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

Ok that’s a pretty good spot for it. I had a feeling you weren’t leaving it there to be destroyed. Thanks for the quick response.