Japan Strategy Concepts

BUT, the Alaska/West Canada strike CAN be done in J2 or J3 (preferably J3) and disrupt the US schuck before established… about the same time that Germany’s first INF buy hits the Russia front…

J3 is a critical time when you’re solidifying your Asian holdings (usually I shuck some troops to F. Indo). I don’t know if it’s wise to release pressure on Russia so soon; your first tank buys probably won’t even hit Asia if you’re striking at J3. You can try to disrupt the US shuck before it’s established, but be well aware that at least I keep 5 infantry already stacked in Western Canada to serve as advance warning (from alaska, central, western US), and that the bomber from London and land troops staged in Eastern Canada will be poised to counterattack these positions. You may keep Alaska for a turn or 2, but it is it worth it to leave the Russians so unmolested? Likely you will have 2-4 fighters along with your carriers/bbs to pressure the US, and this leaves Russia quite in a happy state early on, so he can keep focusing nearly full troops on Germany in land trades and even push back perhaps in south Asia since you didn’t reinforce it so early on.

The US also has to spend much less money defending against the Japanese attacks than it’s costing Japan to attack, especially since you need many transports to maintain a constant pipeline of 3-4 inf/tank per turn. A constant flow of 3 inf 3 tank requires 6 transports, while a flow of 4 inf 4 tank requires 8 transports, very hefty infrastructure costs.

And in US1 and US2 I should have built enough stuff to help sink the Baltic navy as well as get into Africa, so the UK should be more than free to help Russia wherever he can. Germany should be able to take on the UK/Russia alone normally, but the US has already had a chance to build some equipment to help overcome the African barrier and the Baltic barrier. The UK + Russia should be able to hold back Germany fairly well while Russia sends some troops south/eastward to secure more holdings especially since it’s so weak from all those Japanese troops invading the damn Canadians  :wink:

I have thought of messing around with the idea of overbuilding transports at inconspicuous times with Japan (such as building transports when I’m offloading junk into F. Indochina or replacing transports from island hopping). Then I would consolidate all the transports in SZ60 at some point. If the US is not watchful, I would then proceed to offload perhaps 6-8 transports of stuff directly into Western Canada (grab troops from mainland Japan as well as forces in Buryatia previously offloaded), which would spell defeat if the US hadn’t prepped for it beforehand, since he couldn’t build enough forces in Western US to defend against it, especially with bb shots and 4 fighters/bomber. I just have not gotten a real chance to try it though.

It’s pretty easy to disrupt the US’s plans (I think it’s the hardest power to play by far) with Japanese shucks into Canada, but you always have to consider if it’s worth it to release pressure on Russia, as well as you’re not grabbing islands you would be normally to permanently dent the Allies’ economy.

Yeah but you’re splitting forces you build in Japan. One turn to Russia and one turn to the US….I don’t like splitting effort, especially when the US is very capable of dealing with your forces while Russia isn’t. I would rather burden Russia with 100% forces rather than let the US take 50% of the brunt of the attack.

And still, you have increased your infrastructure costs by requiring more transports, and island hopping is out of the question. Africa raiding is hardly going to go well when there’s leftover US/UK troops in Africa, especially since you’re lacking the bb and airpower.

I do like the idea of using BB shots against the US, but the problem boils down to the fact that even when I go 100% against Russia with Japan, I still don’t arrive in time usually. Do you think you’ll delay the US enough to make up for the lack of ground pressure against Russia? Do you think the extra infrastructure cost is worth it? As well as the missed opportunity to island hop and get Africa?

You now have the PERCEPTION of the Axis dominating the game

I’m not forgetting that perception is important at all. I’m just trying to look past perception at the math involved, since it is a math-based game after all and it’s really those top 20-30% players that I’m trying to beat. I’m sure that sending piecemeal forces to the US is very mentally annoying especially with BB shots and will screw up a lot of players (probably even myself as I haven’t had to deal with it enough yet, but it’s not an entirely new concept as I have tried this against myself once).

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not entirely convinced that this strategy is flawed, and it’s going to take a couple of games to see how it plays out for reals, but I’m just trying to look at what you’re giving up when you do this strategy. Plus points for use of battleships and extra mental obstacles for the US player to overcome, minus points for relenting on Russia I would say significantly as those little troops add up over time and it’s already a task with 100% forces committed to cause Russia to buckle under. Though of course if you can cause the US to overcommit defenses, then it may well be worth it overall. If you could force the US into doing a west-based shuck-shuck like you suggested earlier as a counter, that still does delay the US and it could be worth it. But I tend to run a 3x3 transport system in Europe which leaves money to spare for extra expenses like defenses on the west coast and fighters.

and UK sans a fleet, or most of it…

This really shouldn’t be a huge problem since the US has the first 2 turns to fully build stuff to help the UK in the waters and in Africa. If you combine fleets and build lots of extra transport fodder with the UK, then you can work around a German navy and the suicide won’t be that incredibly effective.

You are still sending 7 units a round at Russia in your “weak” round, 11 in your “strong” round, with 4 and 6 at US, along with the BB’s

No matter what you are relenting on Russia. It is a bad idea to go too fast, but going too slow is also bad since you need to close the IPC gap before it takes its toll on you. I like starting Japans first 2 rounds with masses of infantry being dumped on the mainland, so that 4-5 turns later I have good fodder while the tanks are rolling out behind them.

Plus you still get the 3 IPC’s for Alaska and W Canada, the same as grabbing Australia and New Zealand, BUT with the advantage of destabilizing the US shuck

That’s true, but it’s not quite the same as grabbing 3 IPCs as you’re “sharing” Western Canada at least as the US liberates it so the UK feels no dent in his paycheck minus India, which he will quickly regain in Norway and Africa.

Destabilizing the US shuck is good, and like I said the idea of using BB shots a lot is cool, but the US does get something out of this, which is he is helping directly shoulder the burden of the Japanese assault. Running a 3x3 transport system costs can cost between 21-24 IPCs to maintain the land troops with every turn, while the remainder 12+ perhaps IPCs can still be used flexibly to deal with the Japanese or build fighters if they’re not invading.

You can’t both rock the US with 4 inf 4 arm AND dump 4 inf 4 arm in Buryatia every single turn. You have 4 inf 4 arm that you build in Japan which have to be allocated between Russia/US; you can at best alternate between Russia/US every other turn or split 2 inf 2 arm. In a 4x4 build you are truly ramping up the infrastructure a lot, too.

You are definitely keeping the US out of Europe for many rounds (at least 3) if you go hard, but the US has already had the critical first 2 turns to develop enough stuff to diffuse the Baltic and African situations, which then allows the UK to operate fairly freely.

That would be quite interesting to go full-bore against the US for a while and I would like to see how it plays out, but with 32 IPCs dedicated to the US every round, this lets Russia sneak through wherever you’re weak with a commando team of 5 inf + some tanks, quite possibly freeing up sinkiang/china again to realign the IPC difference. You just aren’t generating enough income to keep up a full assault and still maintain Asian land forces.

I would really like to see exactly how this plays out though. If the US isn’t very careful it could easily cost him Western US in a jiffy. For instance if all I had was say 5 infantry in Western Canada, then you could say invade it with 4 inf 4 arm 2 bb shots + 4 fighters. I would then try to build 4 tank 6 inf (38 IPCs, maxes out western complex), which wouldn’t be able to stand against your invading force. I’d have to send in some junk from the Eastern US and planes from London or wherever they are, yet they might be very much caught up in Africa or died against the Baltic navy. Interesting situation  :wink:

you people should start a game… looks like another battle of the Iron Generals! …tonights recipe: war with plastic

I just don’t think going against the US full tilt is going to work. I tried it against myself and I always have enough land troops to deal with it, plus doing it so early really lets Russia kick butt in Asia. It’s a good move to keep in mind when a situation arises, but I don’t think it stands alone as something you can count on winning the game for you, as you really need to pressure Russia hard.

Here’s some thoughts and experiences I’ve had with Japan recently:

If you’re a pretty confident Japanese player, I would suggest completely skipping Pearl Harbor. It is a waste of your time because the fleet there poses no real threat in either the Pacific nor Atlantic theaters. Any units you lose there (especially aircraft) is a detriment to your war effort, and any fighters you have left positioned there are way out of reach to be useful in the next round.

Now, why do I say that the Pearl Harbor fleet poses no real threat?

In the Pacific theater, it is simply a waste of time for the US to pursue attacking Japan head-on, provided the Japanese player is skilled. Japan will outdistance the US in IPCs soon enough, and starts with a tremendously stronger navy that’s even stronger on defense. If Pearl Harbor survives and the US says “gee, I’ll go after Japan”, then you have won a victory right there already. This means Germany will have an easy time in Africa, as well as have a fairly easy time keeping the UK from landing anywhere and force him to buy lots of defensive navy. The US really has to pour their entire income into navy to screw with the Japanese; while it can possibly be effective when islanding hopping using solomon islands, this lets a whole lot of steam off of Germany which is deadly.

The Japanese navy really shouldn’t fall provided you expand at even a moderate pace. You start with 2 carriers and 6 fighters, and if you need to you can put another carrier in the water to create a ridiculously strong defensive force, as well as add subs periodically, all the while dumping troops into Buryatia and walking them through Russian territories. The only way that Japan will have trouble is if all 3 Allies come at him from the start, and that will certainly end in swift defeat as Germany runs roughshod over Africa and the Russians.

Now in the Atlantic, what threat does the Pearl Harbor fleet pose? Except for that one extra fighter, nothing at all. The carrier and sub take something on the order of 4+ rounds to get into a position to defend the transport system. By round 4 you shouldn’t be needing protection unless something went horribly wrong. By round 4 the Baltic fleet should be scrap or very nearly scrapped, and you should already have sufficient defense from the first couple rounds of purchases.

So what do I do with my forces when I skip Pearl Harbor? For one, I’ll use the extra aircraft to increase the chances of the China fight going down in one round. Usually the bomber/fighter in Japan are used against Harbor, but now they can be used against China, which gives you great chance to knock out all that equipment in one go, thereby decreasing chances of you losing infantry which you need early on to keep your gains.

With the Philippines fleet, I will sink that UK transport that’s off of Egypt, instead of sinking the destroyer in Kwangtung. This heavily decreases the attack force that the UK can bring on his next turn; usually with that transport alive he can bring 2 infantry (1 from rhodesia, 1 from persia) and along with the infantry from Trans-Jordan to attack Egypt again (there’s nothing you can do to prevent the first time UK attacks Egypt, but you can mess with his second turn chances).

The destroyer in Kwangtung poses no real threat in any case, especially since I retreat all navy to defend SZ60 instead of using them against Harbor. There is some variability here such as where the carrier/fighter went, but it shouldn’t matter. If there’s a carrier + fighter defending the transport, then I’ll still sink it and be glad. If the carrier went with the destroyer to ensure the kwangtung’s transport’s death, then I don’t care as it poses no offensive threat. Fighters from the Philippines fleet can land in Libya if the dice went bad and you had to lose your Japanese carrier.

I will use that fighter from the Carolines to sink the British sub or transport if they’re around because it has nothing better to do, then it goes to SZ60 with the rest of the fleet to defend the newly built transports.

And recently I’ve been messing around with the idea of starting with a 2 complex buy. It does sound crazy, but hear me out: this ramps up the pressure against Russia much faster than transport builds because of tank’s movement vs infantry. You give up fast island hopping, but you gain Russian territories faster as you can have a nice constant stream of tanks that are mostly in range of each other to counterattack if the Russians decide to push back. With infantry swapping in Bury/Indochina and their slow movement, it’s hard for them to adjust and support each other, as well as push quickly.

You can still island hop with your initial transport. It will be slower, but on the other hand, you do not have to worry about letting up land pressure. If you rely on transports mostly then you’d have to replace the transports or build a complex to keep the land pressure going if you island hopped. With the double complex buy, that’s the end of having to buy more infrastructure right there. Island-hopping slowly isn’t so bad anyways, since it’s not worth a ton of IPCs and you can use free troops from islands and battleship shots. IPCs you miss out on the islands earlier on is very much offset by the territories you can take earlier on the Russian front.

Now, definitely with a 3 tran “normal” buy, you have more flexibility. You can screw with the US and keep him somewhat honest; with a 2 complex buy he can go with a 4x4 fleet but if you have transports potentially invading Alaska/West Canada, he’ll have to run a 3x3 or risk getting snared up easily later on. You can do some pretty fast island hopping, and the transports will help a lot if you’re getting KJF’ed. Of course if you’re getting KJF’ed you should see it coming and definitely in that case go with transports, but if not, then I would definitely recommend trying 2 complexes some time.

And on a parallel note, there is a nasty/tricky move you can do to upset the Allies a bit. It starts with the concept of swapping, where you alternate dropping between Buryatia and Indochina every turn, which is a solid basic strategy since it secures more avenues of attack and lets you drop all troops you build in Japan every turn due to SZ60 bordering Buryatia. Now the tricky move is to actually drop 4 tran of stuff into Africa after you drop troops into Indochina, instead of going back and dumping in Buryatia. 1 tran can go take Madagascar while the other 3 take Egypt, Trans-Jordan, and Italian East Africa.

Now I don’t suggest counting on this or doing this all the time for a couple of reasons: 1) it disrupts your flow of troops against Russia. 2) sometimes the Allies already have a large force in Africa and can deal with you handily.

But if you want to risk it, it can throw a wrench into the Allies’ plans. If they have already shut Germany out of Africa and don’t have significant troops there, suddenly they’re going to have to do a big drop there which is going to mean less troops in Europe this turn. They will be forced to deal with it very soon or else your tanks will blitz up most of Africa next turn and eat up a very significant chunk of UK IPCs.