Is Japan a Monster? [Economic Breakdown]

it does look easier sending everything u have first in the med, then at france / italy.

but can us sink the italian fleet and close the suez quickly enough? jap fleet will!! be in the med by turn 4! the idea of 2 BB 3 CA 3 loaded AC  in the med plus jap ICs in India , FIC, possibly burma or eastindies scares me. why? UK income will be at 12 + whats left of africa which wont be much with japan in the med. so you are basically setting up a huge 1-2 punch ( france/ germany)?. this should get playtested :D.

dont get me wrong. i think going either way with US is an option.

how do you respond as japan when you see US1 go pacifc?

Ive played ~30 games of AA41 so far mostly F2F, couple trough TrippleA. Pretty even number of wins so far. All with NOs, some with some without techs.

But as our tactics have evolved we have  seen a trend in what the allies does when they suceed and win (take the couple of wacky dice first turns that opens special strats away). So far we are pretty confident that the US must go Pacific mainly, the goal of this is not to kill the japanese fleet, but force it to stay together so they cant scatter all around the pacific, play cat and mouse, spread out subs in a lot of different sea zones etc, maintain the pacific NO of USA. while this is ongoing UK starts off making sure his fleet can sustain and start moving troops for africa + killing the Italian fleet as fast as possible, the US uses the 2 transports of EUS to shuffle 4 units ECAN to Marocco every turn. This combined with clever use of the the US pacific fleet (and the transport 41) keeps japan and Italy from totally breaking the UK economy. Ofc alternatives will happen according to what happen at the board, but this is the general idea. UK IC pops up in India if dices go wrong for Japan T1 etc.

what dice can go wrong J1 that would halt japan from taking india j2?

well ive seen the destroyer in indian sea kill 2 fighters in F2F, philipines killing 2inf 1art 1 armor in same turn. Thats enough for india to be reinforced with 2 TJ inf 1 Burma inf, and you have youreself a factory. But India, Egypt, Australia IC is not a rule in our game, but happens when someone try something smart or the dices go wacky.

philippines isnt in range for j2 attack anyway, you got 4 inf at borneo, sumatra,  and 5inf, art in (burma  against 1 inf)…

Interesting analysis.

I’m not convinced that KGF is dead yet either. That said, I think looking at only income/turn is missing the big picture. Income per turn is not the (only) factor we should be looking at. A more important thing to consider is this: how long can Germany/Italy hold out versus a pure KG(I)F strat?

Japan’s income in this game may be proportional to what it was in previous editions, as you demonstrated, but how long will it enjoy 60-70+ IPC cashouts? Each turn Germany and Italy can hold out is another turn that Japan rakes in the big bucks. So how does this compare to previous editions? I’m not sure, but my guess is that the european axis can hold out longer in this game. Also consider that Japan’s income explodes much quicker in this game than previous ones due to the increase in IPCs in the pacific and of course, NOs. All those turns of high cash outs translate into more and more Jap units on the board, units which the Allies will have to deal with at some point.

What this means is that, if we consider Japan’s total income over the period in which the Allies are focused in europe, your verdict on KGF might be different. Or it might not, who knows. In my opinion, KGF is still a viable strat, but it might not be the optimal one. I guess time will tell.

@DarthMaximus:

So it comes down to this, is it easier take ipcs from Germany/Italy or is it easier to take them from Japan?

My vote is, it is easier to take them from Ger/Ita.

Thoughts?

Since this is the -41 scenario, I can’t see any way that allies can mount a serious threat to Jap, unless all allies spend everything against Jap for several rounds, which o/c looses the game for allies since it means leaving Ger/It alone and this will lead to Ger+It+Rus+Jap against UK+US…

I think Japan is only a monster if left alone.  If U.K. is defeated in India and assume no IC is built to try to halt Japan.  Only the U.S. can really bring a fight and kill units.  Sure Russia can divert but they are busy surviving and tackling Germany.  Germany is smack in the middle of the three allies and it is much easier for them to bring their numbers to bear against Germany.  More German units will die and be taken off the board so it will appear Germany has less, when in reality it pumped out as many units IPC worth but lost more than Japan.  If Japan floats happily around the pacific and piles units on land unopposed then it will appear like an orange plague is covering everything.

I agree with your math, so maybe Japan just looks like a monster on the board because of the area it can influence.

@atarihuana:

philippines isnt in range for j2 attack anyway, you got 4 inf at borneo, sumatra,  and 5inf, art in (burma  against 1 inf)…

6 inf 1 art 1 AA vs 4 inf 2-3 fighters is a battle i take anyday. Remember for us to build an indian IC the destroyer just killed 2 figthers, we would also prolly run the R1 fighter down to india for 1 turn to make sure it survives J2. Thing is the IC in India is a situational thing we do IF and only IF the opportunity arises.

The bottom line is the US building a fleet big enough to make sure the Japanese fleet have to be together. That heavily slows down Japanese expansion. And will make sure the at least the US pacific NO is safe, and most of the time theyre able to seize one of the Japs island for the 5 NO UK one.

I play KJF because of two reasons: the first, principles. The second, it’s the lesser bad

I think KGF is not even possible of do if Japan launchs a massive attack against America. They start with 5 trannies, can buy 2 more round 1 and probably more round 2. With so much trannies, after taking Pacific islands, Japan can send all of them loaded to a combo of sea zones (Hawaii sz and others) threatening Alaska, Wcan and WUSA in such manner USA cannot defend the three and possibily only WUSA, deadzoning wcan. Then, all Japan have to do is land the massive stack in Alaska and trading Wcan, setting a 4 x 4 chain of trannies and maybe a Alaska IC. This will, at least, halt USA in their continent, unable of aiding Africa or Europe (and Africa will be lost to italians in many KGF games were UK fails to build saf IC).

The bad news are that it was possible in Revised were Japan had much less income (after round 3) and much less starting trannies

The worst news are that in AA50 soviets cannot annoy Japan with token forces (as they did in Revised) because of larger distances and because Japan has so much income that they can still, while doing the Polar Express, send more guys to soviets and Africa than in Revised

The horrible news are that western axis can easily beat by economy the UK+USSR combo even without Japan’s aid or at the very least equal them, leading anyway to axis economic victory in long run because Japan colects more than USA

The only way of allies winning with a KGF (that basically cedes the iniciative to Japan) is if Japan also cedes the iniciative again and don’t try Polar Express. And I’m not saying that JTDTM cannot win the game, it can win it and probably will do while axis manage mantain their economic advantage

What really should be taken into account when discussing the AA50 game is Italy, which I think changes the game in a major way. Axis & Allies is always going to be about capturing capitals, given the massive effects that has. In all earlier editions of the game, ganging up on Russia was the default strategy because Russia was the weakest power, leading to the JTDTM strategy which made AAR a broken game.

Now, in this game all strategies I think should include eliminating Italy if you play the Allies. It is connected to Africa as well, which must be kept for the UK to be a valid power in the game IPC-wise. Italy is very simple to SBR, its fleet is vulnerable, it has little defensive power in comparison to Germany.

So, the two major strats for the Allies I think will be:
KIF= all of US resources and most of UK goes vs. Africa and Italy, and UK devotes enough to ward off the fall of Karelia. UK builds Saf IC.
Balanced KIF= US resources are divided between the above objective and building up a fleet in the Pacific that offensively distracts Japan and buys the Allies time to more effectively put the KIF strategy into place. UK as above.

The most interesting thing to see is how the Axis will adapt to this new environment. I suspect the game has been designed in the direction that it’s worthwhile for Japan to attack east with at least a part of its resources to hinder the US deployment vs. Italy -> so that a balanced KIF will be forced on the Allied powers! Maybe a balanced KRF will be the preferred Axis strategy, a Moscow advance balanced with attacks against Africa and North America.

If US goes for Italy/Germany, they should use Subs near exclusively for the Pacific.  They allow them to threaten the enemy fleet with a much weaker fleet and not get wiped out immediately.

I am just going to say, with my experience in the games of 1941, that KJF seems (to me) to be easier than KGF/KIF.

Perhaps it is my experience with KJF from Classic and Revised.  Perhaps it is just my ability to mentally calculate a fleet battle more accurately than the calculators SEEM to (not saying it actually IS better, just I seem to get out of naval engagements far better than the calculators predict and pretty close to how I envisioned it).

That’s just my opinion on the matter though.

On a more factual basis:

Germany + Italy = 50 IPC give or take.  (I assume Africa is in Allied hands and that Germany is getting 2 National Objectives while Italy is getting none.)

Russia and England are about 50 IPC as well.

Japan is 40 IPC early in the game and can get really strong from there, but America is 50 IPC and if focusing on the Pacific will only go up from 50 not down.

If Japan is putting units into attacking and defending the Pacific, they are not putting feet on the ground to attack China and into Russia.  This means Russia has more it can bring to bear on Germany.

Boats, IMHO, are more expensive for Japan than America.  Yes, I know, the price of the boat is fixed and the same across all the nations, but honestly, if you have 41 IPC with Japan (J2) how much does that battleship cost you compared to USA (A2) with 48 IPC?  For America it’s only 41%.  For Japan it’s 49%.  For America it’s no lost ground units, America has decided to attack Japan and won’t need ground units for a while.  For Japan it’s lost ground units and reduced ability to attack China/Russia.

I agree that the US should go primarily after Japan, the big question is in what way(s) can the UK/Russia help against Japan so that the US can play a ‘split’ strategy and still send units into africa/etc.  I can honestly see no way for the UK to help against Japan, Russia can atleast seed china to give the Japs a headache.

/bugoo

In the '41 scenario, UK helps against Japan by sending troops over the Middle East to protect Caucasus, by landings in Algeria, builds in South Africa IC, or both. This is later in the game of course, so yes USA is the one bearing the brunt of fighting vs. the Japs for most of the game.

In the '42 scenario, you also can build an IC in India for a more direct strategy. Haven’t really started playing '42 yet but it looks like a possible strat.

You really need to play a 42 setup to see the difference in the Pacific theatre. Japan only has 1 transport so an IC in India can work very well if you spend the first 3 US turns building in the Pacific. I’ve dominated Japan three times already in the 42 setup - the key is sticking to the Pacific with the US. The UK must deal with Italy quickly while Russia does its best to hold off Germany. Despite the low IPC count Russia can defend against the Germans without Japan breathing down their neck.

Japan starts with atleast a 260+ army/ navy on the board…. its a moster. Were as the US after a good J1 should only have like 108+ IPC that can effect the Pacific.

3 CV    14=42                  1 CV  =14             
1 BB      20=20                  1  BB  =20
1 CA      12=12                  4 Fit  = 40
9 Fit      10= 90                3 DD  =24
1 DD      8=8                    2 tran =14 
4 Tran    7=28                  2 Bom =24

18 Inf    3=54                    6 Inf  =18
2  Art    4=8                      1 art  =4
1  Arm  5=5

= Monster  About 267          About  158
Pacific theather.

Yah, Japan is out of hand.
They can make up the IPC income gap with the US by J2.
And two transpots in J1 would help that alot because they could get their whole home force to china russia in J2
Have fun stoppin this whale Ahab!!!

I think the Allies can throw everything they have at Afr and the Italian fleet early with the intiention to kill the fleet and cripple Italy by rd 4.  After this the US has the freedom to confront Japan in the Pac if it wishes or just continue and try to actually take Rome or Berlin.

One caveat though: if Japan deploys its fleet aggressively vs. the West Coast, you really can’t wait since once your Pacific fleet is sunk it’s almost impossible to rebuild. You’ll be forced to build at least enough to defend yourself vs. a Jap carrier strike, but that doesn’t mean the basic strategy changes. You need a carrier and some auxiliary ships afloat off the West coast as a kernel of your Pacific fleet to have any chance of challenging Japan. (All this assuming abandoning the Pacific ocean is not your strategy.)