Japan had one HELL of a hard time. The US IC at Sinkiang and the UK IC in India tore holes in the Manchurian infantry landings and advances into Russia. Later, the British from Afica were unstoppable. Russia therefore, had an easier time defending itself from the east. Japan was forced to direct all attention to the Russian territorial attacks and lost the badly needed NP from Asian UK and US territories. Japan never gained enough in NP to buy a later IC. Japan taking south-east Asia early with a first turn IC in French Indo-China solves this problem. I know this is a major issue for all of us - but I’ve got to stand firm on this one…
its kinda obvious you will get a hard time when allies do japan first strategy. The reason why you went for russia is because its closer to manchuria and therefore you are more tempting to attack Yakut.
Britian only was supplying most of their effort to Japan. Most of the US and Russian effort was against Germany. I don’t think I could call that a “Japan First” strategy. Allied delaying tactics initially with tough British re-enforcements later. One of the suggested strategies for Japan is to forsake initial Japanese IC’s for transports. Japan can’t fight for IPC’s in north and south Asia without an early IC. NP just won’t get high enough. The north and south fronts work for maximum NP gain, with or without Allied IC’s in Asia. You will have forces in the area in turns 2 and 3 to deal with them. Eyes should be on Africa as well. Germany can only hold out so long. The US diverting troops to Africa helps Germany…
Either you didn’t make enuff transports or you simply had some bad luck.
At maximum, Sinkiang and Indian IC’s can produce 4 (maybe 5, i forget if India is 2 or 3) units per turn. You should have at LEAST 4 transports sending infantry over every turn. That’s 8 infantry per turn.
And eventually, you should build a mainland IC. Just not right away.
Had 8 infantry transported each turn plus 5 fighter and a bomber air support. NP never got high enough to support another transport let alone an IC. As for the luck, the roll results were what you would expect. As I said before, the strategy itself isn’t aggressive enough. If the aim is to conquer all of Asia, threaten Africa, and set up for the fall of the Russian capitol, an early IC IS needed. Due to positional needs, French Indo-China is the best choice. 2 or 3 transports will supply the effort, until NP can buy another IC, unless you capture one in India or Sinkiang. Enter Africa if possible, especially if the UK hasn’t fortified it. American troops in Africa, if present, shouldn’t be too powerful due to the war in Europe. The NP boost even over a contested Africa will definitely help the Axis cause…
I don’t see why you not buying an IC would have doomed you. You could put more troops on the mainland per turn than all the allies you faced. I just don’t see how they could have torn you up like that.
Picture it. Japanese infantry column from Manchuria to Yakut. Aircraft based in both areas for defense/attack. Contested territories are Evenki or Novosibirsk. Japan can’t land planes in them yet. Say you take one of these on a turn. 8 infantry after battle with the Russians down to 5 or 6 infantry. US 2 armor counter-attack from Sinkiang knocks it down to 3 or 4 infantry. Russia may or may not counter-attack. If they don’t at this point, they build reserves in Russia (up to 6 infantry). If they do, they retake the territory. If Russia didn’t attack, the UK’s 3 armor from India knocks the Japanese force of 3 or 4 infantry to 0 or 2 infantry. Japan couldn’t possibly hit the Russian capitol with only 2 infantry and aircraft. So they non-combat move or attack an enemy force. If Russia took the territory back, the UK re-enforces the Russian infantry with the 3 armor. Russia, with this system, can attack every other turn greatly helping them. Since Japan’s focus is all Manchuria-Yakut-Evenki/Novosibirsk, they lose China, French-Indo-China, and Kwangtung to the Allied IC’s while fighting the initial Russian defenses in the Soviet Far East and Yakut. This is where Japanese NP stagnates, they lose and gain at the same time. NP never gets higher than 27, only supporting 8 infantry per turn. Any moves away from landing in Manchuria will severly weaken Japanese chances. The Allies can easily hold this arrangement until 5 to 6 UK armor come from Africa per turn. Now your talking at least 6 or 8 UK armor per turn (depending on NP - as high as 38). Plus 2 US armor from Sinkiang and Russian infantry (as many as needed).
Japan is in the death march to Russia in this losing situation.
The early first turn IC in French Indo-China opens the 2nd front in the south. The remaining units in the region will compensate for the lack of IC production in turn 2. Take Allied Asian IC’s if they dare place them. Even though your Manchurian offense is down to 4 infantry or armor, the aircraft will compensate for this (3 planes per front). You don’t have the Allied delaying armor to deal with. You have armor to deal with UK African forces. You have forces to deal with Russians by themselves. Most importantly, your NP is as high as you can get it. This gives you your 2nd IC or more transports.
The next objective is to build up forces to take the Russian capitol before the US can build powerful forces in Europe. If the German player is any good, this CAN happen…
you wouldn’t necisarily have to go for russia initially. You could still take china and india before turning your attention to the russians.
Field Marshal, let me give you an analogy that has nothing to do with A&A to show why you lost.
Now, say your making a webpage. You can chose between Microsoft Frontpage or straight HTML. You are inexperienced with both. If you use Frontpage, you’ll turn out a worse webpage, but its easy to learn. In the long run, HTML will give you a better page.
Its the same thing with Japan in A&A.
Bossk - you need to open the 2nd front by turn 2. Infantry alone aren’t aggressive enough to quickly take both areas. You need southern forces to deal offensively with a British threat from Africa. Infantry in the north are needed for a few turns (3 or 4) before turning to armor for speed and power. This is maximum NP gain in the shortest time.
Yanny - Thanks for the analogy??? I’ll let it go at that.
Guys - this method has proven itself. The infantry guidelines quoted to excess are duly noted. In most circumstances they are sound. Britian and Japan are the antagonists that need to put the war in motion…
Personally, I never switch to tanks. I use fighters for offense.
I find purchasing fighters are too much of a luxury in a contested war over Asia. If I had a choice of purchasing 3 fighters or 7 armor - I’d pick the armor. I try to retain all 6 original aircraft for as long as possible, but for the IPC’s ground forces are my choice…
As Japan, I usually buy 2 transports, and 3 infantry first turn. I then transport 2 inf. from the Phillipines to India, bring in the fighter and troops from Burma and also a fighter from Manchuria. This usually ends Britains role in India. Now Im left with the US and Russia. Second turn, I’ve got troops on the way from Japan and THEN i build an IC to pump out tanks on the mainland.
This is a variant of what I usually do, depending sometimes on the enemy. The effect is fairly the same, 2 fronts on turn 2 with the Allies pushed back…
Problem is, how are you going to get 7 tanks to the mainland? Thats 14 infantry worth of transport. Fighters just fly right over.
By the time you have that much NP, you will already have your first turn IC purchase. If your enemies were kind enough to hand you one in the first 3 turns, there’s 5 or 6 armor. You’ve already got 2 original transports. There’s 7 or 8 armor (again depending on NP).
If you don’t capture an IC, work up to the 2nd IC purchase. Keep your flow of units steady and save your extra cash. Sometimes, a 3rd transport makes sense before the additional IC.
Remember, all of Allied Asia gives Japan 44 in NP. This means 8 or 9 armor per turn.
Purchased IC’s give the player a greater “position” for attack unit entry. To keep a constant flow of units, transports can’t move any further south than Kwangtung. This means it will take armor 3 turns to reach Persia. With an IC in French Indo-China, it takes 1 turn. You can invade Africa or at least tie down the British so your northern IC and transports can attack Russia. If the German player isn’t making unnecessary risks, the pressure on Russia will crack them…
But think about it. Say you have your IC in manchura. The British build one in India, the Americans one in Sinkang. You can get 5 tanks a turn (assuming you using your transports for tanks like you just said). The allies can build a combined 5 tanks a turn. They have the money to do this easily. Now where do you get the 35 a turn for 7 tanks? The answer is you don’t. You get less a turn because the allied presence. You lose asia. America and British rush in for the kill on Japan while Russia holds germany off.
The first turn IC goes in French Indo-China. The turn 1 attack is normally China but can be India if Britian places their IC in turn 1. At the end of turn 1, transport 4 infantry and land 2 or 3 fighters in French Indo-China to back up the IC and set up turn 2 attacks. In turn 3, you have 3 armor as well, and China-India-Sinkiang are in Japanese hands.
In the northern front, turn 2 sees the return of the transports to Manchuria and an attack on Soviet Far East and/or Yakut. Keep half your aircraft in the north and half in the south, or as needed.
The Allies will be more reluctant to place IC’s with this sort of threat. If they do, capture them.
At this point I usually hear about the dual offenses “stalling”. By the end of turn 3 using this plan, all original Allied units in Asia are destroyed or retreating. The armor units quickly pick up any “lag” which may appear next turn. The Allies get a good jolt. Russia must send proper defenses to this front immediately. Britian must have Africa secured to help, if not, Russia will suffer. The US hasn’t had the time to properly hit Germany yet, and will hopefully divert to Africa (anything helps Germany) in alarm for African security.
A good British move for Japan is Britian moving their initial African forces to India to protect a first turn UK IC. While it may stall Japan a turn or 2, Germany gets the same time in further delaying Allied conquest of Africa. If Germany can get Egypt AND Syria-Iraq in turn 2, Britian loses landing areas for their fighters on an attack on the German fleet coming from Gibralter. The German fleet gets at least 1 more turn life expectancy and more infantry transported to Africa from Europe…
How to keep the British IC - Land Russian Fighter there, use Transport to block any potential Transports from Philipeans.
The Allies building ICs in Asia is a bad move. Japan should be able to overtake them with relative ease -and if not, it only means the Allies are dedicating WAY too many resources towards Japan.
Japan should build an IC in Manchuria and then another in the adjascent territory and should max them out with tanks each round. Transports are a weak substitute for ICs.
