Is Japan a Monster? [Economic Breakdown]

I think this is a perfectly reasonable strategy – but keep in mind that you are forfeiting two victory cities as the Axis. The Chinese can attack and occupy Kwangtung, so you’re losing out on both Shanghai and Hong Kong. This makes it very hard for the Axis to get a majority of the victory cities. Even if you completely crush Russia, that only gets you to 9 VC:

Tokyo, Manila, Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Warsaw, Berlin, Rome, Paris.

So then you also have to pick up India (challenging without any factories in China), or Australia (hard to hold if you’re mostly going after Russia), or Honolulu (ditto).

The Japanese share of Russian income is just not that large – dripping wet, you’ve got Buryatia, SFE, Stanovoj, Yakut, Evenki, Urals, Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Stalingrad (15 IPCs total).

Meanwhile, the Japanese income for all of China is Manchuria, Kiangsu, Suiyuan, Ningxia, Chinghai, Sikang, Hupeh, Fukien, Yunnan, Kwangtung, and the NO (18 IPCs total).

So, yeah, given that Russia is a more important target than China, you can see where it would be worth a few bucks to go after Russia instead of China, but there are no VCs in Siberia, so that’s the trade-off. If you actually crush Moscow early, then, great, the gambit worked. If not, then you might gain some very minor economic benefits, but you’re likely to stall out and lose on points in the endgame.

@Nixonium:

China is also the shortest path to Russia.

Take another look at the map.  A chain of Japanese units thru SFE is the shortest path to Moscow.  New inf units take 5 turns.

@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).

Atlantic Sea Zones:

I’d say split SZ 11 and 12 into north and south with the south border being equal to the spit between SZ 19 and SZ 10.

Those two will stop 1 Round invasions of Algeria.

Splitting SZ 9 and 8 in half at the same level as the star for the Victory City at Toronto (so it will be split SOUTH of England) will stop 1 round reinforcements of England from SZ 10.

This will give German Submarines something to do in the Atlantic as well, since America cannot just jump across the ocean and dump their units into England/Africa.

Yup, I def agree that Japan ICs should be located in FIC/Burma/India. Honestly, I don’t see the point of putting a factory in Manch.

I like to make a hard push towards India on J1, taking out Burma and both 4 IPC British islands so that I’ve got plenty of ground units to take and hold India on J2, as long Germany was successful at clearing Egypt and the Soviets didn’t send troops to Persia R1 (which I’m starting to think might be a good idea).

This allows an IC on Burma J2, and an IC on India J3, which means Caucasus starts to hear the Jap tank treads as early as J4. I find this really helps relieve some pressure on Germany.

If Germany did not manage to clear Egypt, or the Brits have Soviet assistance in India/Mid East, then I’ll go the Burma/FIC route for the factories instead.

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.

@bugoo:

‘The problem is this sets up a deadly dance.’

:-o

I hit SZ56 with 2 FGT and %3 with the DD and 2 FGT. In non combat I put the CVs and the surviving fighters in SZ51. I also withhold the CA from SZ50 using the BB only. I position the CA with the fleet in SZ51. I have had the US get cocky and attack this fleet. Yeah it cost me a CV I could replace and it cost the US a wad of units that were going to take several rounds to replace.