Where do you usually send Japan's 5 starting transports on J1?

Its hard to say for sure if Philly J1 is the best option, but not only is this a good way of getting 2 NOs, Japan also denies US one of their NOs at the same time by capturing Philly.

If the US doesn’t contest Japan in the pacific then Japan can be setup for Australia J2, or Japan can land everything up north J2, or land in Fic J2. So if US leaves the pacific Japan can just take everything off their islands and move it towards India and Moscow. It will save a turn. If US wants to challenge Japan then Japan better leave the units on the islands, and start making warships.

I haven’t played too many games as Japan, but I do the Phil island attack on J1 b/c of the NOs (both getting and denying the US) and also I just prefer to just get it out of the way.  That way I don’t have to worry about back tracking later to get on J2.  I’d rather get the core of Jap/Pac settled early so I can then just concentrate on expanding outward after that.

So far (as no expert on Japan), it seems taking the Phil on T1 just kills the momentum of Japan on the mainland, and it can be easily taken trn 2 while Japan consolodates it’s navy.  I still kill the destroyer T1 however.  I think it is worth forgoing the NO for 1 turn to really buffer up the mainland assult/ really threaten south Asia/Africa.  I usually go heavist down there.

I think Japan needs to jump out of the gate for the Axis to have the best chance to win. Choosing to deny themselves 7 IPC’s by not taking Phil and the NO while at the same time letting the US collect 7 IPC’s they normally wouldn’t seems like a bad way to start the game.

@dondoolee:

Can some one explain the advantages of a T1 invasion of the Philipines to me (other than you gat an NO that turn)?  I really fail to see the advantage of it.

Assuming, NOs: The difference between taking Philippines on J1 is 14 IPCs. (Japan gains 7, US loses 7)  I think I’d like to keep a carrier’s worth of money between me and my principle opponent.

@U-505:

I think Japan needs to jump out of the gate for the Axis to have the best chance to win. Choosing to deny themselves 7 IPC’s by not taking Phil and the NO while at the same time letting the US collect 7 IPC’s they normally wouldn’t seems like a bad way to start the game.

While the NO on T1 may be tempting, I tend to favour getting as many troops/ securing the mainland as much as possible. especially when the Phil can easily be taken T2.  I consider killing India or the troops on it/Jordan (19 IPC’s worthf units 25 w/ AA) much more valuable.  The last thing I need as a Jap player is an India alive for more than 2 turns.  I think a T1 delay is worth it.  It seems a more aggressive move anyway.

@U-505:

I think Japan needs to jump out of the gate for the Axis to have the best chance to win. Choosing to deny themselves 7 IPC’s by not taking Phil and the NO while at the same time letting the US collect 7 IPC’s they normally wouldn’t seems like a bad way to start the game.

Then UK can hold India for an extra turn, so you are really not totally forgoing the $12 IPCs.
I would rather hurt UK as fast as possible as opposed to hurting the US.  The US is too far away early game to most efficiently use the extra money.

Plus in the Philipines, you can’t really push into the Indian ocean if you’d like (Persia especially if UK units try to escape)

@Blaarg:

@dondoolee:

Can some one explain the advantages of a T1 invasion of the Philipines to me (other than you gat an NO that turn)?  I really fail to see the advantage of it.

Assuming, NOs: The difference between taking Philippines on J1 is 14 IPCs. (Japan gains 7, US loses 7)  I think I’d like to keep a carrier’s worth of money between me and my principle opponent.

But Japan is gaining IPCs else where, so it’s not a total of $14.  Plus I would forgo some $ to be in a better strategic position almost all the time.

@axis_roll:

@U-505:

I think Japan needs to jump out of the gate for the Axis to have the best chance to win. Choosing to deny themselves 7 IPC’s by not taking Phil and the NO while at the same time letting the US collect 7 IPC’s they normally wouldn’t seems like a bad way to start the game.

Then UK can hold India for an extra turn, so you are really not totally forgoing the $12 IPCs.
I would rather hurt UK as fast as possible as opposed to hurting the US.  The US is too far away early game to most efficiently use the extra money.

Plus in the Philipines, you can’t really push into the Indian ocean if you’d like (Persia especially if UK units try to escape)

Well, to be fair to you guys(the people who don’t attack Phil on J1), I haven’t seen that move enough to know if it works as well, or better, as taking Phil. If you guys say it’s a good move then I won’t deny it.

But, the things that bother me about it, really bother me.

First, J2 is a setup turn for Japan. Japan only has 17 IPC’s to spend on J1 so the majority of the income gained on J1 to be spent on J2 almost always goes to IC’s and TP’s and I would rather have 40 IPC’s than low 30’s to allow me to purchase a few more ground units or maybe an extra TP on J2.

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.

I’m wondering if it would help make a KJF possible. Japan earning less and the US earning more in the first round, Australia a possible spot for an IC, and japan sending part of it’s fleet away from the Pacific toward India and Africa. That all seems favorable for KJF especially if Japan loses more than it’s share of ground units or fighters on J1. At the very least, it’s a novel approach for Japan not to attack the Philippines on J1. I’d like to see it in action.

@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.