Is Japan a Monster? [Economic Breakdown]

I still don’t see that Japan can be seriously challenged in the -41 map, NOs or no NOs doesn’t make any difference either.

Yes, Japan’s income of 60-65 is a lot of units, but those units won’t hit the front lines for another 4-5 turns.  So if Japan earns 60 in rd 3-4, the Allies don’t need to worry about those units until rd 7-8.  That is a ton of time for the Allies to cripple Italy and help Mos against Germany.

I’m not saying that Japan can necessarily stop the Allies from crushing Germany and Italy because they’re cashing out high. What I’m saying is that, even though you’re right that Japan’s per turn income is comparable to previous versions, they will be in a stronger position to take on the Allies themselves by the time Germany and Italy fall. Its possible that the Japs could still be in a position to win even after Berlin falls. The “cost” of playing KGF, if you like, is higher in this edition; not because Japan makes relatively more per turn now, but because they accumulate more money/units over time while the Allies are in Europe.

To be clear, I’m not advocating a KJF strategy. But, it may be more effective for the Allies (the US in particular) to not ignore Japan completely. Even a token force in the Pacific can work wonders at slowing down the Jap cash machine. There seems to be a sort of “diminishing returns” aspect in my view, where a couple extra units in Europe will help a little, but a couple extra units in the Pacific/Asia can help a lot.

So I think a more balanced approach (one which still focuses on Europe) could be more effective than a pure KGF.

I have a similar experience as a previous poster; games where I’ve seen the Allies win were KGF.

~However~ in the games that were decisive Allied victories the US did not ignore Japan, they spent a portion of their IPC’s to harass Japan in the Pacific. How do you best do this as the US?

Subs.

and later in the game… subs + bombers.

Just building 3 subs off the US west coast for the low price of $18 on US1 causes a serious headache for Japan. First, if Japan went for a US aggressive strategy on J1 that left their carriers deep in the Pacific, placing subs off the US west coast forces an immediate retreat. Aside from that scenario a couple of subs per turn changes the tactical situation in the Pacific dramatically. Japan can’t send transports around the pacific theater willy-nilly unescorted (unless they’re OK with sacrificing the transport… but this results in a net positive IPC trade for the US). Otherwise Japan has to keep their fleet consolidated into 2 (maybe 3) groups; meaning much less flexibility and slower expansion. Japan is also forced to build destroyers to counter subs, and destroyers cost more than subs so again this is a net IPC gain against Japan.

In the end subs in the Pacific become a money-grinder for Japan. They have to spend $IPC to replace lost transports and build otherwise useless destroyers. Every $IPC spent by Japan to counter a US sub is an $IPC not being spent on land units into China/Russia. Meanwhile, the US still has plenty of $IPC leftover to send troops into the European theater and take down Germany.

US subs seem like the most “bang for the buck” way to slow down Japan while the Allies methodically take Germany apart… my .02 ;)

I wouldn’t really know if Japan can be challenged in 1941 without NOs.

With NO’s, America can easily close the financial gap with Japan and even surpass Japan production wise with minimal effort from England and Russia. I’ve done it a number of times.

The trick is to realize submarines for a useless unit in naval combat.  You might have a good offensive force with those 12-20 submarines, but the other guy with 9-15 Destroyers (same cost) has a better defense and has units to block your attack with so he can move into range of your fleet forcing you to retreat or go on the defense (making those 12-20 submarines almost completely useless.)

I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

Of course, this assumes both sides have battleship(s), carrier(s) and fighters, maybe even a cruiser or cruisers as well. (Though, I find Cruisers of limited utility.  They seem good for England who is strapped for cash early on, but not so good for America and Japan who either want the two hit ability of battleships or the multiple units of Destroyers.)

@Cmdr:

I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

As Japan if you spend enough time and $IPC to build an entire “picket line” of destroyers to counter a handful of US subs then the subs have done their job and the US has won that battle.

The point of the US throwing subs into the Pacific theater is not to take down the Japanese navy; it’s three things:

1. force Japan’s ships into a defensive/consolidated posture which is less flexible on offense and more importantly slower to expand.
2. force Japan to spend $IPC on something other than the land war in Asia
3. do #1 and #2 as cheaply as possible and make it cost more for Japan than it costs the US

In a typical J1, Japan will have about 40 ipc production at the end of J1, using NOs. Without NOs it will then be ca. 30 ipc.

So at at the end of J1 regardless of NOs, Japan will be at the same production level as the US.

@DarthMaximus:

By the time this occurs Afr and the Italian fleet should be in the process of being cleared, so at this point the US can freely go after or defend against Japan.  A proper US shuck starts in Wus on turn 1 anyway and slowly builds up to 8-10 units (for 4-5 trns to go to Alg).  I just don’t think that it is an inviting target for Japan, to see 8 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wcan, 8 inf, 2 arm in Wus.  So the US pulls back one turn and stacks 2 inf, 2 arm in Ecan, 14 inf in Wcan, 8 inf, 4 arm in Wus.  Is this a good target for Japan?

Yep, this is a pretty good target. You forget the massive AC fleet Japan startsand the buys fron J1: 6/7 trannies (12/14 land units) plus 6 fighters from ACs can beat any of wusa or wcan. You probably will retreat to wusa and left wcan empty better, but you are losing 1 round at least, and one round is all Italy needs to keep Africa. And nothing prevents Japan landings in Alaska

J1 IC to FIC, J2 IC to eastindies or J3 to india. i lreally like the FIC IC. i can produce AC / BB / CA here if i must without needing to protect them  from air in early rounds

Umgar:

I think you misunderstand.

America must first build enough submarines to constitute a threat.  They then must have a significant force of these submarines scattered around in half a dozen sea zones in order to encourage Japan to put destroyers all over the place.

In reality, America would have maybe two piles of submarines 3 territories away. (Any closer and Japan would sink them.)  Or America would have a pile of submarines protected by a line of destroyers.

In either case, it would only take one, two or three Japanese destroyers to successfully block those submarines from attacking the fleet.  However, the Americans wouldn’t be able to just kill a destroyer and leave her submarines there because the attacking Japanese fleet would obliterate them without significant effort.

Basically, if America is going 100% submarines (or close) as I see advocated by a few people here and there, they’ll just end up shooting themselves in the foot without adversely affecting Japan at all.

Submarines will end up costing the United States significantly more than a couple of destroyers for Japan.  This is because the fighters Japan is using to sink those submarines (at the cost of a destroyer or two) is negligent given the fact those same fighters can move inland again to assist against Russia and China.

I agree with DM, Japan will need at least two, maybe more ICs.

I like Manchuria for the first one because if you lose it, it is worthless. (China does not need an IC and can’t use it anyway.)  However, it is a 3 IPC territory meaning you can build 3-5 units there (if you have the tech.)

For the second, I like FIC because it’s pretty darn safe and it’s significantly further inland from Japan and Manchuria.

Then I also like one in Burma and later one in India.  I just like the idea of Japan not needing to build anything on Japan and not needing transports at all.  I feel more flexible.

@DarthMaximus:

I understand China is weak, but they aren’t that weak that they won’t chew up the initial burst of Japanese Asia units, esp when reinforced by a few Russians.

Japan should kill China J1, and in one round in most of battles. China starts with a crappy total of 4 inf, 1 fig and pops 1 last inf in round 1. Let’s say the fig survives the 1st round of attack, this means 5 defenses with infs, 2 with the fig -> usually 18 defense points -> 3 loses . Japan starts with 9 infs in mainland plus probably 2 more from some trannie. China will not do any real damage to Japan unless you make the error of not doing a total attack against them J1 OR crappy luck

I don’t know how are soviets playing in your game, but if they are winning 48-49 two rounds, it means they have the 2nd NO, and there is no way of soviets taking it so soon but bad axis play or crappiest dices. Send soviet units to China and USSR will have a very hard time against germans

I still don’t think KGF is the way, west axis is too strong even if they lost Africa, Japan is too powerful and USA will not send enough aid to Europe if Japan attacks America, that is in fact nearer from Japan than Moscow

I agree with Func.  In 1941 there should not be more than 1 Chinese infantry left on the board.  Killing the fighter is paramount!  (I’ve toyed with letting it live in the hopes of killing it later, it never works out well for me.)

Yes, they cut down Japan’s starting infantry, but that’s not a huge deal since Japan is earning so much.

China itself should be a non-entity before China Round 1.

Japan Round 1, the way I do it, leaves China with 1 Infantry and 4 Territories.  So at the end of China 1 they have 3 Infantry
Japan Round 2, if China put their infantry in the way of advancing forces - and most players do, should reduce China to 0 Infantry and 1 Territory.  So at the end of China 2 they have 0 Infantry and 1 Territory.

In other words, after Japan 2, there is no China.

Soviets can defend Chinghai, but this is the farest they will get or they can be toasted by germans. A mixed stack of soviets plus the last chinese in Chinghai will not damage Japan if they counter KGF with a Polar Express. Japan can simply send a stack enogh great to defend from rogue soviet attacks (3-5 should be enough) and focus on Pacific expansion, India and Polar Express. Your target with Japan is not Moscow in this strat, is halt USA to prevent they can reinforce Africa or Europe, and when USA are halted, Japan can start sending token forces to Africa or Siberia while still menacing America.

Compare this with Revised, where soviets could send a couple of token inf and tanks to China and create havoc in Japan’s rear. It was possible because of shorter distances (and weaker Germany compared to new western Axis), but in AA50 not. Also, chinese territories recovered meant more income to USA, but now it’s hardly of any use to allied cause in 1941 because China collects popcorn inf at start of her turn  :-P It’s slighty better for allies in 1942 because Japan’s turn is not between soviets and USA, and China starts stronger

@DarthMaximus:

I always liked Japan going after the US in Revised a bit better b/c you could land directly into Wcan.  I think it may have been easier to pull off the surpise aspect of it.

Yep, that’s the only bad thing in AA50 about Polar Express. But to counter this, you start with 5 trannies in 1941. You can send all trannies that captured big islands AND J1 purchased ones to WUSA range in round 2. That’s the surprise. And you can still land in Alaska (of course, this last don’t work if building shuck from WUSA as you said)

Oh, and you should not be able of sinking italian fleet round 3-4. They have 2 options: start buying boats as crazy or at very least escape to Indian Ocean and take mad and saf (the last if no IC there, of course)