I think I see what everyone is saying, now I could be wrong but these are my assumptions that I base this on.
A) Most of the pacific early game fighting is for island dominance, mainly Indies, Borneo, Carolina, and Phillipeans.
B) Japan has the fleet advantage, but there fleet is primarily defensive based (carriers)
C) Japan fleet has a perceived weakness, no DDs to start and half of there boats (carriers) and venerable to subs.
J1: hits islands, etc. Importantly, 2 carriers in Japan SZ or 1 SZ nearby, 1 AC/Cruiser in SZ 37 near Burma, 1 BB in SZ 50 near phillipeans.
US1: purchases, lets go crazy 5 subs 1 trannie.
J2: hits india, etc. Cannot send boats within range of subs, cannot even block the dang things. Buys DDs.
US2: sends 5 subs 1 loaded AC, 1 DD, 2 bombers to SZ46/Solomon. Purchases 2nd AC, another trannie, maybe a bomber, more subs, DDs, whatever with leftover.
J3: cannot go into any of the above listed islands or die. Best case rally at SZ 50 with DD, but that fleet is exposed to bombers, 4 fighters, subs, etc. Plus fleet maybe splintered. Doesnt even want to hit the US fleet to sink the surface vessels because subs can submerge and counter next round with reinforcements.
US3: island grab time!
And as far as blocking destroyers, a sub heavy US build best get some UK can opener planes in the area!
So I would have to agree that using the above concept in theory can give the US the initiative in the pacific and force japan to dance to there tune!
Now to build just subs is dumb, but 5 subs US1 can put a hurtin on japan.
@Cmdr:
I’m not really saying to take all the submarines out and melt them down to make new playing chips. What I’m saying is that submarines are hopelessly underpowered.
I’ve built them myself. I’ve encountered them. So far there has been one underlying, fundamental truth: The side with more submarines in its fleet losses the naval battle. I’ve yet to see a naval battle where one side had more submarines than the other and won.
Commander Jennifer, I agree with you for the arguments you have already said.
Briefly: submarine are weak in defense, they are useless to stop movements, they do not inhibit loading and unloading.
All this think are fact and I agree with them.
What I was trying to do is exploring situations in which they may be useful.
I think that the vastness of the Pacific Ocean may allow the submarine to be used while the Atlantic, being more smaller, do not allow such maneuvering, force to stack sub, and definitely make them more vulnerable to a single DD and airpower.
So Germany, in many games, should only use the subs already on the board without buying more.
Submarine for Japan:
Uses:
1 or 2 Submarines from Japan, when coupled with 3 carriers, 6 fighters, battleship, cruiser and destroyer (basically what you start with) could be sent out in hopes of getting past America ships and sinking transports. I don’t see it happening, but it could.
Problem:
1) 12 IPC is a bomber.
2) 12 IPC is a cruiser
3) 12 IPC is 4 Infantry
4) 12 IPC is 3 Artillery
5) 12 IPC is Infantry, Artillery, Armor
etc. All are better choices IMHO.
America is slightly better off. Since you have no navy of which to speak anyway, a few submarines would at least encourage Japan to put two destroyers in the water (8 IPC if they did not lose the one they start with, 16 if they did.) 1 Destroyer for the SZ 62 fleet, 1 Destroyer for the SZ 36 fleet of transports - Your warships being busy killing things and your carriers being present with the transports of course.)
Doesn’t mean I’d go out and buy 8 submarines a round for 10 rounds though.
Doesn’t mean I’d go out and buy 8 submarines a round for 10 rounds though.
But it does mean that they arent useless, which was your earlier position that drew the response. I believe it was something along the lines of ‘use them for toothpicks’ or ‘build anything but’ or ‘they are completely laughable’.
If you are having to build the early DDs and worrying about getting the DDs to your fleets then they are provoking a response. And they can continue to do that all game depending on circumstances. Yes, if someone drops 5 DDs on turn 2 or 3, its prolly time to stop making them.
There is a world of difference between ‘useless, never build more than one or two’ and ‘build 8 a round for 10 rounds’. Somewhere in that difference is their true utility and it will vary from game to game. They are more situational units than some, but that doesnt mean that they cant be extremely useful in the right game conditions. I’d say I build 1 or 2 many games (just to force the DDs), but I rarely build a pile. In the right situation, they can be game-breakers or at the very least, keep your opponent off balance for a round or two. In the wrong situation, continuing to build them can be folly.
And I still feel that way. But as with any unit, having 1, maybe 2, of it on the board is helpful.
Even building a Bomber with Russia in Revised had SOME uses, and I’d liken buying submarines in AA50 to buying a Russian Bomber or Fighter in AAR. (Though the Fighter does turn out to be helpful in games where you think your opponent isn’t 100% on his game with the Axis.)
I’d like to try and maintain a sub fleet of between 6 and 12 subs they work well for me.
Pity I couldn’t try that strategy against you sometime Jen as I might be able to show you how it can work or vice versa. I’ve read a lot of your posts and you are quite knowledgeable but I do have to disagree with you here. Cheers!
The sad thing is, until triplea a supports the new sub rules, I won’t be able to test this out :) I like the live action playing of triplea. I should just offer to code it for them or something heh. Does anyone know if the engine is being modified for anniv? I know the map files are out already but not the engine mods.
Its a shame a good discussion of Japanese strategies got derailed by an argument about subs. Let me see if I can’t throw out a few things to get us back on track.
Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?
When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?
What are your responses to US naval builds and why?
Its a shame a good discussion of Japanese strategies got derailed by an argument about subs. Let me see if I can’t throw out a few things to get us back on track.
Not really, because subs can or cannot make a big difference in Pacific (and thus Japanese strategy).
Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?
Depends on my build and whether I lost any Fighters, but usually 1 goes to Japan and 1 to Okinawa. That leaves them close for mutual support but gives them both a slightly different range of operation on J2.
When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?
That completely depends on the Allied response. If they go KGF or even dont make 100% commitment to the Pacific, IC goes in Manchuria on J2 to crush the Chinese and any remaining Russians. A second IC will likely come down in India or Burma depending on the situation.
What are your responses to US naval builds and why?
More or less depends on what the US does build in SanFran, but usually I’ll go with CVs and Fighters (and some throwaway DDs). They give the greatest range of operation and they can combine up the most firepower in an area efficiently. Add some Fighters to island bases if the US is serious about fighting in the Pacific. Usually Bombers are a pretty safe bet because if you win the sea, they can quickly shift to wrecking Russia’s factories.
In general, I’ve found Okinawa to be a key point for Japan to station a few ships. It allows you to block off the SoPac from the US if need be by dropping a ship at Pearl. This can often buy you a turn to get moving from Japan.
I’ve found that so far, the US pretty much has the initiative in the Pacific. Japan has to split her time and attention for the first few turns giving the US some time to start mucking around. That draws Japanese resources away from the continent and buys Russia and maybe the Brits some time. Japan cant ignore a US presence or she will quickly start losing large chunks of income. This means that the battles should not stagnate between experienced players. Our first few games has the big standoffs and arms races but since then its been all fluid battles where smaller fleets are sparring rather than massive fleets going for win or lose battles.
I am leaning more and more towards Japan going into Pacific turtle mode and throwing tanks into Asia.
I think I’d normaly still hit Kwangtung, Hupeh, Suiyuan, Yunnan, Sumatra, Borneo, Philippines, SZ 53, SZ 35, SZ 56 (might drop this from the list) and SZ 50 on the first round.
From here a strike on Australia would be good showmanship (kills a British NO and gives Japan one) after that, it’s racing back to SZ 51 with everything, maybe SZ 62 and going all out tank war into Asia Minor.
going all out tank war into Asia Minor.
back to square one huh? some strategy… :|
Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?
I like to position the sea zone 57 carriers in 51. This allows the aircraft on them to take down Australia on J2. Even if the US Flies the Hawaii fighter and the sea zone 44 fighter to Australia these fighters with the sea zone 37 fighters (from sea zone 35 attack) will be enough to take Australia. I will also sacrifice fighters to take Australia if necessary for 3 reasons. 1.) It is a 5 IPC NO so 2 rounds of the NO will replace a fighter. 2.) It removes the UK NO whether Egypt falls or is liberated. 3.) It is a good ways from Japan to Australia so I think it is best to get the job done from the start rather than have to try and come back latter.
When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?
I build a Japanese IC turn 1 and save 2 IPCs. This allows my carriers to be off projecting power and not at home protecting transports. On turn 2 I can produce with this IC the 1 or 2 transports I need to start emptying Japan into sea zone 61 so that the transports are again safe from American air. On turn two either the sea zone 37 carrier or one of the sea zone 51 carriers can move to sea zone 61 to join with these transports. I build a second IC in Manchuria on either turn 2 or 3 depending on what the Russians have done. Remember Russia can only liberate Chinese territories, Russia itself can gain no benefit from them. Any Russian force that comes south from Buryatia can be dealt with at my choosing. My primary immediate goal in Asia is to eliminate the ability of China to produce infantry by the end of J2. Remember Chinese infantry are free. All others have to be paid for and shipped to Asia.
What are your responses to US naval builds and why?
I have been counter building against the US navy once they start to match my fleet in size. I am beginning to think this is no longer entirely necessary or even the best course of action.
One mus task oneself what are Japan’s goals, and are my actions contributing towards those goals. I think America makes too much money for Japan to take down in AA50. So that basically leaves Russia. With that in mind I am thinking Japan should do as Jenn stated after the initial land and money grabs in the Pacific. Pull the fleet back to Japan and start dumping 8 units a turn out of Japan and 5 Armor a turn from the 2 ICs. The transports at Australia and New Guinea at the end of J2 can be used to grab remaining money islands without being protected. They are too far from Japan to return home in much time to be of much use and the money they earn through captured can go to their replacements if any such are even needed.
Has anyone ever had the UK send there destroyer to SZ 48 to block forcing Japan to choose between India and Australia? Would it slow you down in the Pacific? Also, how likely would you be to strike the US carrier/ destroyer if they took position in SZ 46 or 53 assuming a large US naval purchase? Would you be more likely to attack them if they also landed there two bombers on the respective islands?
Has anyone ever had the UK send there destroyer to SZ 48 to block forcing Japan to choose between India and Australia? Would it slow you down in the Pacific?
No, and i would not recommend it, as it would remove a threat to the 4 IPC islands from the area. and a destroyer is not exactly block for the japanese ambition for australia. Better to keep the transport out of combat range but make sure the japanese has to keep ships / aircraft in the area.
Also, how likely would you be to strike the US carrier/ destroyer if they took position in SZ 46 or 53 assuming a large US naval purchase? Would you be more likely to attack them if they also landed there two bombers on the respective islands?
Thats a more difficult question. First, from japanese view i like the american to build ships, as it takes up large amounts of IPCs and does not directly threaten the mainland or fleets, as they require time to utilize. It also frees up the german. On the other hand, if no measures are to be taken to deal with it, it will become a problem earlier or later. Therefore I suggest the following: If the american only builds a token force, attack it and free up your IPCs for a land campaign; if the american goes all out fleet, reinforce yours so that the american has to build another round. Then decide how to deal with it accordingly.
@Heavy:
going all out tank war into Asia Minor.
back to square one huh? some strategy… :|
Not really, since what I am talking about is grabbing what you can in the first two rounds then Turtling Japan while sending in everything you can to help beat down Russia faster.
Of course, with my current German opening, that might be a moot issue.
fast way to russia for japan is india
BUY:
1 bmb, 1 arm
CM:
sz57 4ftr to sz53 1BB
sz61 2ftr to sz35 1DD, 1TN
sz61 1BB, 1CA and sz51 1DD to sz50 1DD, 1TN
sz61 1TN(2inf) to sz49 take Borneo
sz51 1TN(2inf from Carolines) to sz38 take East Indies
sz51 1TN(1inf from Carolines) to sz48 take New Guinea
Kwangtung 1inf
-sz62 1TN(inf/arm from Japan) to sz61 assault
-1ftr Formosa
Burma 1inf
-sz61 1TN(inf/art) to sz37 assault
-3inf FIC
Suyian 1inf
-3inf, 1ftr Manchuria
Fukien 1inf
NCM:
sz61 1CV, sz35 2ftr to sz37
sz57 2CV, sz53 4ftr to sz51
3ftr(Suyian, Fukien, Kwangtung) to FIC
IPC: 31+10 BUILD: 1bmb, 1arm Japan
Has anyone ever seriously considered ignoring china and india and SE Asia and directly going for America. WUS can be taken J# if America is not careful.
Yes its a high risk strategy… you do not gain IPCs quickly but you have a huge starting force advantage. this means a lightning raid on America can really press them
why ignore it when u can bash it without yout navy?
Has anyone ever seriously considered ignoring china and india and SE Asia and directly going for America. WUS can be taken J# if America is not careful.
Yes its a high risk strategy… you do not gain IPCs quickly but you have a huge starting force advantage. this means a lightning raid on America can really press them
The problem with that is China can “re-take” Manchuria, Kiangsu, and Kwangtung which would really hurt Japan.
[…]
I like to position the sea zone 57 carriers in 51.
[…]
Do you position that CV/fighters without additional naval units? Seems a bit to risky.
US can attack there with 3 fighters and bomber. Normally you lose only three fighters, but what if US get three hits at first round? Tricky question: Lose two fighters, one CV? Lose three fighters? You have to choose your losts before you know your hits. Lost three fighters may risky if you only get two hits. And if you lose the CV as third and an additional fighter later, you have lost 44 IPC and US lost only 42.
