Japan Basic Strategies, Concepts and Ideas

As this topic has fallen asleep, I want to discuss the allied bidding strategies in aa50-41, no tech, low-luck, bid: 13 IPC

I - Russian fighter

a) fighter on the western front, maybe on Caucasus to eventually kill the German transport in the med or to Karelia to make a German assault to expensive (high losing risk and forgoing too many other targets) and eventually killing the lone German transport (if the cruiser attacked the UK destroyer)

The 3 IPC left can be used for any allied country, e.g. an infantry in Egypt

b) fighter on the eastern front to Buryatia to kill the transport in SZ 62

b1) With 3 IPC go to the US and buy an infantry on the Philippines, land the fighter there. 3 Inf + 1 Fighter is hard for Japan lacking one transport and having no shore bombardment
b2) With the 3 IPC go to UK, e.g. Egypt, land in Yakut und go to the western front against Germany
b3) With an infantry bid in Burma or India: land in Yunnan. Yes, this is a sacrifice, but 3 Inf + 2 Fighters just allow the Japanese to clear the country, but probably not conquer it. This will slow the Japanese very much in moving against India.

II Anti-Manchuria

Bid: 1 Inf to Buryatia and 1 tank to Soviet far east and one to Stanovoj C.

attack Manchuria with 4 Inf + 2 Tanks - 2,5 units left is the expected result in low luck, means 2 tanks or 2 tank + 1 inf
a hard punch against Japan but no bid for Africa/Europe

III-UK fleet

IIIa destroyer in SZ2

While SZ 2 is still attractive, only 2 subs + fighter + bomber is a safe deal.
Which means Germany has to sacrifice one fighter in SZ 12 for at least one battle round to secure the Italian fleet.

IIIb destroyer in SZ12

in SZ 12 the italien fleet is endangered severely so Germany must attack here.
both attacks, SZ 2 with 1 sub+fighter+bomber and at the same time SZ12 with sub+2 fighter make both somewhat risky, probably losing a fighter for Germany too.

the 5 IPC remaining will probably be a UK tank in Egypt or a Russian tank on the front against Germany

IIIc a sub in SZ12 and a sub in SZ 35

the one in SZ 12 is to threaten Italy, while the one in SZ 35 wants to harrass Japanese ships or lone transports

Buying both at the same time is one option, the other is buy only of of those subs and some ground units

IV - pro Russia

buy any units for Russia for 13 IPC placing them on the front with Germany

V pro UK

buy any units for 13 IPC for UK, maybe to strengthen either India oder Egypt/Africa

Have I missed some good allied bids ?

I play without national objectives regularly.  IMHO, the key for the Axis is killing Russia. I have found that the best way to kill Russia is to do a combined Germany/Japan land assault.  However, this cannot be done if USA and GB are offloading on France/NWE-  Germany cannot guard the Atlantic borders and keep pressure on Russia.  My solution was simple.  Establish a chain supply of Japanese fighters to France for defense (2 per turn as of turn 3)  This accomplishes two things: one, defends France effectively and,two, forces the Allies to build navy to avoid losing their transports.  This allows Germany to send roughly half of their land forces to the Russia front. ( build only infantry and artillery since IPC’s are scarce from turn 3 forward)  This slows Japan down but is well worth it to keep pressure on Russia from Germany.  Also,  move the Japanese fleet to protect Italy from invasion.  Allies can’t amphibious assault Italy with a massive combined Italian/Japanese fleet in sea zone 14.

I build a German bomber on turns 1 & 2 to keep Britain off shores till turn 3, then the bombers become useful in swapping territories with Russia.

I always felt allies were stronger in both scenario. You just have to know how to play Russia agressively.

Definitely not. Allies are at a huge disadvantage in 41. Although Axis is at a huge disadvantage in 42. Its unfortunate that neither scenario is balanced.

@Corbeau:

Nice move but even if Triple A allows to do it, I am not sure if you really can send your fighters so far out without the carriers being in range to recover.

The thing is that in theory, carriers can’t recover your fighters unless you pass trough the BB.

It works out since you can recover in non-combat but I am not sure if its legal since at fighter launch, you can’t recover them due to ennemy ships in the way.

Either it is legal, or it’s a triple A error to allow the move.

I had exactly the same doubts Corbeau, but checked it on the main AA50 forum and it was confirmed that this is indeed legal (and explained in detail on pg 26 of the rulebook). Aside US good luck - it is possible to destroy the BB, AC, DD, and Ftr - and hopefully end up with 2 carriers and 4 Ftrs pretty much out of harm’s way. Capturing Hawaii is a bit of a stretch - but I like it for a first turner anyway as it does give Japan those 5 IPCs straight away. To have a go at Hawaii you would (I think) have to take some pretty extreme risks.

1. 2 Ftrs Formosa SZ, 1 dd, 2 trns, 3 inf (offload inf Hawaii), carolines - Hawaii SZ (vs 1 BB) 90% chance of winning. (tripleA battle calc)

2. 3 inf Caolines, 1 Ftr, SZ 57 - Hawaii (vs 1 inf, 1 ftr). Which is 87% chance of a win

3. 3 Ftrs SZ 57 vs SZ 44 (1 DD, 1 Carrier, 1 Ftr) which is virtually 50/50. However - I’m not sure whether the battle calc takes into consideration that the US must lose their fighter before their carrier as the ftr has no landing spot.

I’ve tried this solitaire on Triple A and got all my targets. However - I found that the extra strain on the Japanese navy left various transports in vulnerable spots without escort and the Phillipines came down to a rather close for comfort 1 arm/1 inf vs 2 inf which the Japanese lost. Japan took Wake though so as to deprive the US immediately of the their Wake/Midway/Solomons/Hawaii NO.

None the less - the following US turn Japan would have lost most of its transports - or a carrier (in the Wake Island SZ, with a Cruiser and transport - no planes).

After trying a second time with more conservative tactics (Not taking hawaii) Japan still was overstretched. She lost 3 ftrs in the attack (30 IPCs) against the carriers for only 32 IPCs damage to US forces and her carriers are rather out of range of the rest of the navy. She also had bad luck losing a ftr and destroyer to the American battleship (which was also destroyed). Even so - she ended up with just 2 ftrs and 2 carriers which fortunately the American response (1 bmbr, 1 dd, 1 ftr) only took 1 plane off. Had the US had more luck the Japanese carriers could have been in trouble.

Overall I think it was a bit exciting to ‘wipe out’ the US carrier force in Rnd 1 - but strategically of less impact than the much easier option of the destroyer/transport on the west coast (which Japan CANNOT do if they go for the carrier - they simply don’t have the forces).

@TimTheEnchanter:

@Frontovik:

i prefer 42 for KJF
cause then you can put IC on those 4 IPC islands
and there, japan is actually beateble
Russia is also in offense first round, so germans have to withdraw a bit, which gives russia a bit more breath.

You can’t place US ICs in the pacific (except phi) in '42.  per the official FAQ, the “original controller” of those islands is still UK, even though japan starts the scenario with them.  If us takes them, they are liberated for the british.

sorry, my mistake :-)
but i still prefer '42

@U-505:

Second, the logical progression after attacking Phil is to go to Australia(J2) and then to India(J3) and then to Africa(J4). It’s hard for me to wrap my head around what happens if you don’t attack Phil on J1, but you still go for India and Phil on J2. Australia is still in UK hands at the end of J2 so in order to take it you’re either going backwards from India or if you push on to Africa from India then you’re looking at buying a lot more TP’s than just the 1 or 2 I usually buy with Japan because most of your initial TP’s will be too far away to come back and start landing units from Japan. And that seems costly considering you earned 7 IPC’s less than you would if you had taken Phil on J1.

If I don’t attack Philipines J1, I buy 2 tpts.  Those Tpts can take on Philipines J2, leaving all the other tpts freedom to do whatever they want.  By stationing in sz37, taking Burma, Japan will have 4 transports, loaded carrier, BB, CA in range of Australia J2 (Unless UK blocks).  Ground unit wise, at least 3 inf + whatever is left in Burma to australia J2.  The threat to hit India with the same units and 3 ftrs in FIC makes the UK units run for the hills, so you pretty much walk into India J2 AND take australia without being blocked from Australia by one silly UK DD (if you go to Philipines).

By being in SZ37, you threaten so many spots, the allies really can’t afford to try and hold anything very strongly and their best/safest course of action is to withdraw safely, most likely to persia.  Even there, JApan can hit with east indies and burma units + 2 ftrs or maybe another 2 ftrs if italy/germany take TRJ.

It’s not a pretty scenario for the allies.  Of course, the allies can get lucky and hurt Japan by doing well in Burma (3 inf, art vs UK inf), but the same can be said of the US inf hurting that same force J1.

I have found that it is fairly easy to get Japanese units to the Russian’s doorstep via Persia. What is more difficult to do is to get enough units there to be a real threat. Between attrition, taking territories to build income, and watching your back for the US, Japan can get spread real thin despite having perhaps the highest income of all the players.

Depending on how hard the UK fights, Japan can be in Persia on J2 if they want and have an Indian IC building tanks on J3. Unfortunately, Persia can quickly become a dead zone until Japan has enough force to hold it. And just because they can hold PER doesn’t mean they can take CAU right away. A lot depends on how effective Germany has been on their side of the front. Unless they are very lucky, I don’t think Japan can assemble a worthy attack force in PER until at least J7, and that is a long time in this game particularly if the US is making threatening moves on the Japanese territories in the Pacific.

Don’t get me wrong, I think BUR-IND-PER is a great way to go. But Russia needs to be pressured on multiple sides. Maybe some Japanese units coming through China (MAN or JAP IC builds), some coming from the south (IND, BUR, FIC, or SUM builds), plus some German pressure from the West. Otherwise, Russia can easily hold off any one of these fronts for quite a while.

So far, I am finding AA50 to be a very fluid game. What works in one match, may not work in another. A lot depends on the decisions made by your opponent, and how you respond to those countermoves.

There is a oft-repeated piece of military wisdom (variously ascribed to either Clausewitz or von Moltke) that goes, “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Make all the plans you want, but be ready to throw the original plan away the moment it is no longer working for you.

Yes. And it works great. If the US abandons the Pacific, IMO Japan absolutely should start massing bombers. They can get into action quickly, can easily change theatres if need be, and can wreck the econ or join the battles at will.