Japan strategy help

[SCG_Ritterkreuz]

So ive been playing AA since ive been a kid so im pretty decent player. Pretty new to this 1942 version. Have only 223 hours or so. I was ranked silver on both axis and allies last season. My question is two fold. Looking for advice on to scenarios as japan. When UK plows in a TON of planes into india. How do the better players reapond? And secondly when America goes all in against japan and plops their navy at that island just 2 spaces away from japan homeland. I cant try and take asia when they keep me at bay and have enough stuff that i cant hit it with out it being a super gamble. Interested in what some good options are. Love to hear some feedback thanks guys!

[ReoHays]

Easy, play defence with Japan and Offence with Germany. Who ever the Allies gang up on plays defence, the other needs to take out Russia. The balance is America and UK slowing down one of the Axis and Smashing the other. The dice will make sure that somthing gets screwed up and you need to make up for it.
Japan can conquer Russia without a Navy. They can also send planes to Germany for defence and they get a free strike at the UK before the US can join them.

[ReoHays]

If you loose your fleet as Japan you will see it coming, by your 2nd turn you need to be planning to take India, if you do, them the UK will have to put a Factory in Borneo to pump men into Asia, by then you should have Asia and Russia should be in a bad way. The more money the Allies throw at Japan the faster Germany can build Tanks.

[sirhahnsirhahn]

I agree with ReoHays when he says if America heads west to threaten Japan, relax your Japanese land attacks and play defense more. You need to take a little bit of land, but if all of the American resources are focused on Japan, Germany will have more resources to take Russia out. It becomes a race - and Germany will usually take Russia before America can hurt Japan enough to make a difference.

[Dimitri]

If UK puts a lot of planes into India, exploit the weakness of planes - they cannot take territory. You can just leave minimal troops next to India to trade so it does not break out, and go around and focus on caucasus and possibly sneak into africa. The other thing that is going to be happening is UK will have very little money to spend in Europe if all they are doing is putting planes in India. So this is not really a problem for you overall, just a problem to take India, which is not a requirement.

When America makes for you, one thing to consider is when you can make navy buys. When USA is already in range, and your fleet is substantially weaker, it is too late. So when you anticipate this happening, take the chance to maybe make a couple of subs while USA is still building up. Then move out of range when USA gets closer. When USA threatens, make fighters on Japan. This can deadzone the nearby area, as USA will not be able to approach. You want to set up a situation that even though your fleet is weaker, when USA moves in range, the combined force of your fleet plus fighters on Japan will wipe out the USA fleet. Fighters also will prevent Japan from being taken.

As mentioned, if you can stall USA while it builds up a fleet, you are winning, as these resources are not being directed at Germany. It is very hard for USA to overwhelm you while you buy fighters. Just toss a few troops into Asia to keep India stalled and moving towards Russia slowly, and let Germany do the rest.

Lastly, if USA is coming for you, whatever you do, do not build an Industrial Complex. It is just one more thing you have to defend, and you will not have the production capacity to use it, and if it is taken, USA can build there. If you are under threat from USA, you are not going to need more than 1 or 2 transports worth of stuff to move troops, as you are going to be building fighters and ships. Early IC with Japan is generally a mistake anyway, but especially so in this scenario.

[Comrade Bernie]

I have found a new procedure for Japan, a little risky and new, but I think it works. I always take everything in asia except for sinkiang, the russian territories, and india round 1 as japan. That is normal, and I do it every game. Anyways, I tried something new this time. I build an industrial complex in the western most countries of Asia, all of them two spaces away from Russia. I then build tanks in them each turn, and after I take india(build complex in french indo thailand) I put three tanks in india each turn. My tank fleet grows pretty rapidly, and once Russia is occupied with Germany, I will send in the tanks to russia, in hopes of taking it...on second thought, don't listen to me, I only play the computer, because online games have broken for me.

[aardvarkpepper]

Dmitri wrote pretty much everything I would have, except in fewer words . . .

Few comments / questions

1) Eh, I don't know about "better" players. I know what I would do.

2) A "TON" of fighters - what does that mean, literally? UK1 3 fighters at India, UK2 3 fighters at India, UK3 3 fighters at India? Nothing in the Atlantic? Really nothing?

3) Have the developers implemented allied carrier use yet? Either US pops carriers and UK lands fighters, which gets real nasty real quick, or not.

[Yeseylon]

Originally posted by aardvarkpepper:

3) Have the developers implemented allied carrier use yet? Either US pops carriers and UK lands fighters, which gets real nasty real quick, or not.

I don't have a definite answer, but I just noticed the carrier had a transport style UI when I clicked on it. Could be they did implement it or it's coming soon.

[Julius Borisov]

The use of allied carriers will be coming to the game in the future (it's not implemented yet).

[FlaMiN_EliTe]

Originally posted by Dimitri:

If UK puts a lot of planes into India, exploit the weakness of planes - they cannot take territory. You can just leave minimal troops next to India to trade so it does not break out, and go around and focus on caucasus and possibly sneak into africa. The other thing that is going to be happening is UK will have very little money to spend in Europe if all they are doing is putting planes in India. So this is not really a problem for you overall, just a problem to take India, which is not a requirement.

I have yet to see a competent UK player dedicating mass fighters to India who is not doing so solely to try to hang onto India from Japan or trying for some kind of KJF strategy. Either of which would make "just ignoring them and going around" unworkable because if you ignore them they'll just stop investing so much in India and go back to investing against Germany, if it was just to try to hang on, or else they're going for a KJF and Japan won't be able to just "go around".

[FlaMiN_EliTe]

Originally posted by Dimitri:

Lastly, if USA is coming for you, whatever you do, do not build an Industrial Complex. It is just one more thing you have to defend, and you will not have the production capacity to use it, and if it is taken, USA can build there. If you are under threat from USA, you are not going to need more than 1 or 2 transports worth of stuff to move troops, as you are going to be building fighters and ships. Early IC with Japan is generally a mistake anyway, but especially so in this scenario.

Huh? If the USA is going to come for Japan it only makes sense to do so fully, and if it's going to go in fully then it can only make sense if you're going with a KJF strategy, and if you're employing a KJF strategy it only makes sense to invest all three Allied nations as completely as possible, and if all three Allied nations invest in coming for Japan as completely as possible the last thing Japan should or can do is invest in ships of any kind whatsoever. That's about the surest way to lose to a KJF strategy.

[aardvarkpepper]

Originally posted by Julius Borisov:

The use of allied carriers will be coming to the game in the future (it's not implemented yet).

Thanks

[aardvarkpepper]

Originally posted by FlaMiN_EliTe:

lose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaN6TuFyye0

[Dimitri]

Originally posted by FlaMiN_EliTe:

Originally posted by Dimitri:

Lastly, if USA is coming for you, whatever you do, do not build an Industrial Complex. It is just one more thing you have to defend, and you will not have the production capacity to use it, and if it is taken, USA can build there. If you are under threat from USA, you are not going to need more than 1 or 2 transports worth of stuff to move troops, as you are going to be building fighters and ships. Early IC with Japan is generally a mistake anyway, but especially so in this scenario.

Huh? If the USA is going to come for Japan it only makes sense to do so fully, and if it's going to go in fully then it can only make sense if you're going with a KJF strategy, and if you're employing a KJF strategy it only makes sense to invest all three Allied nations as completely as possible, and if all three Allied nations invest in coming for Japan as completely as possible the last thing Japan should or can do is invest in ships of any kind whatsoever. That's about the surest way to lose to a KJF strategy.

I am not sure this is true. First of all, I have never seen a 100% KJF from all 3 nations, including USSR sending troops east. If USSR does this, Germany will take Russia with certainty.

I do not even think it is advisable to go KJF with 100% of resources of UK and USA. Again, this leaves USSR to contend with Germany alone. The most effective KJF I have encountered is most of USA and a some of UK, with UK also harassing Germany. USSR needs UK's help.

So in a scenario where Japan has to deal with USA and some UK, a stronger fleet can keep USA at bay for longer. And buying time is the key, letting Germany build and take Russia. A few subs early and then fighters can deadzone anything near Japan. Sure, eventually USA can build to withstand this, but not for a while.

I think giving up the Japanese navy is a recipe for loss. Japan loses the money islands, and potentially gets its ICs on mainland taken. Manchuria can be hit from the sea by USA transports, so an IC there is very risky.

By the way, I am open to being wrong. We can even test this in a custom game online if you want. Though the SZ37 battle can often decide whether this will work or not.

[FlaMiN_EliTe]

Originally posted by Dimitri:

Originally posted by FlaMiN_EliTe:

Huh? If the USA is going to come for Japan it only makes sense to do so fully, and if it's going to go in fully then it can only make sense if you're going with a KJF strategy, and if you're employing a KJF strategy it only makes sense to invest all three Allied nations as completely as possible, and if all three Allied nations invest in coming for Japan as completely as possible the last thing Japan should or can do is invest in ships of any kind whatsoever. That's about the surest way to lose to a KJF strategy.

I am not sure this is true. First of all, I have never seen a 100% KJF from all 3 nations, including USSR sending troops east. If USSR does this, Germany will take Russia with certainty.

I do not even think it is advisable to go KJF with 100% of resources of UK and USA. Again, this leaves USSR to contend with Germany alone. The most effective KJF I have encountered is most of USA and a some of UK, with UK also harassing Germany. USSR needs UK's help.

So in a scenario where Japan has to deal with USA and some UK, a stronger fleet can keep USA at bay for longer. And buying time is the key, letting Germany build and take Russia. A few subs early and then fighters can deadzone anything near Japan. Sure, eventually USA can build to withstand this, but not for a while.

I think giving up the Japanese navy is a recipe for loss. Japan loses the money islands, and potentially gets its ICs on mainland taken. Manchuria can be hit from the sea by USA transports, so an IC there is very risky.

By the way, I am open to being wrong. We can even test this in a custom game online if you want. Though the SZ37 battle can often decide whether this will work or not.

I utilize a KJF strategy almost without exception with the Allies. First, because a KGF bores me like playing chess with white opening p-e4-- everyone has seen this and it just gets tedious to me-- and secondarily I feel like it works better because of the fact most people aren't use to it. It's much easier to cripple Japan than it is Germany, and Japan has to have more exact play to counter a full Allied onslaught than Germany does. Germany also struggles to aid Japan directly compared to the reverse. But going it partially is a disaster because the best Allied strategy is a concentrated focus on one or the other Axis powers, thus the monikers "KGF/ KJF". If the USA is spending anything for a Pacific fleet it must be in total and for complete continued dedication to eliminate Japan. A little is absolutely worthless and a complete waste of resources. It also can't go it alone, and must rely on a dedicated UK and initial Russian head fake. Otherwise it's doomed outside of a complete botch job by the Japan player.

With that in mind, I've seen a lot of Japanese responses to a KJF strategy. Trying to match a dedicated Allied onslaught via shipping is an IPC impossibility. Dedicated air power and infantry in Asia has always been the most difficult lift. Asia has to be fought for to both best secure continued Japanese funding as the only islands worth anything (my biggest complaint with this map) are also the hardest to defend long term for Japan, as well as proxy help to aid the Russian demise as quickly as possible. Keep in mind that Japan doesn't have to win the game itself by beating back the Allied onslaught, it merely has to hold out long enough for Germany to come rescue it once taking Russia. With a KJF strategy the Allies are essentially saying 2v1 is easier than 3v2, and so we'll trade Russia for Japan. Germany can't win a typical 2v1 in this scenario. So that's the Allied gambit. And that's the challenge put on Japan specifically, and the Axis generally.

[Dimitri]

Originally posted by FlaMiN_EliTe:

Originally posted by Dimitri:

I am not sure this is true. First of all, I have never seen a 100% KJF from all 3 nations, including USSR sending troops east. If USSR does this, Germany will take Russia with certainty.

I do not even think it is advisable to go KJF with 100% of resources of UK and USA. Again, this leaves USSR to contend with Germany alone. The most effective KJF I have encountered is most of USA and a some of UK, with UK also harassing Germany. USSR needs UK's help.

So in a scenario where Japan has to deal with USA and some UK, a stronger fleet can keep USA at bay for longer. And buying time is the key, letting Germany build and take Russia. A few subs early and then fighters can deadzone anything near Japan. Sure, eventually USA can build to withstand this, but not for a while.

I think giving up the Japanese navy is a recipe for loss. Japan loses the money islands, and potentially gets its ICs on mainland taken. Manchuria can be hit from the sea by USA transports, so an IC there is very risky.

By the way, I am open to being wrong. We can even test this in a custom game online if you want. Though the SZ37 battle can often decide whether this will work or not.

I utilize a KJF strategy almost without exception with the Allies. First, because a KGF bores me like playing chess with white opening p-e4-- everyone has seen this and it just gets tedious to me-- and secondarily I feel like it works better because of the fact most people aren't use to it. It's much easier to cripple Japan than it is Germany, and Japan has to have more exact play to counter a full Allied onslaught than Germany does. Germany also struggles to aid Japan directly compared to the reverse. But going it partially is a disaster because the best Allied strategy is a concentrated focus on one or the other Axis powers, thus the monikers "KGF/ KJF". If the USA is spending anything for a Pacific fleet it must be in total and for complete continued dedication to eliminate Japan. A little is absolutely worthless and a complete waste of resources. It also can't go it alone, and must rely on a dedicated UK and initial Russian head fake. Otherwise it's doomed outside of a complete botch job by the Japan player.

With that in mind, I've seen a lot of Japanese responses to a KJF strategy. Trying to match a dedicated Allied onslaught via shipping is an IPC impossibility. Dedicated air power and infantry in Asia has always been the most difficult lift. Asia has to be fought for to both best secure continued Japanese funding as the only islands worth anything (my biggest complaint with this map) are also the hardest to defend long term for Japan, as well as proxy help to aid the Russian demise as quickly as possible. Keep in mind that Japan doesn't have to win the game itself by beating back the Allied onslaught, it merely has to hold out long enough for Germany to come rescue it once taking Russia. With a KJF strategy the Allies are essentially saying 2v1 is easier than 3v2, and so we'll trade Russia for Japan. Germany can't win a typical 2v1 in this scenario. So that's the Allied gambit. And that's the challenge put on Japan specifically, and the Axis generally.

Fair enough. I would be curious to see it in action. One thing I will mention also with regard to the OP, we do not know what games he is facing. Your version of KJF I feel is pretty rare and may not be what the OP is facing. I was giving him general advice on what might work against most players, not your version of KJF specifically.

And I just want to say that what I see as Japan happens so much that it is just rote to me a this point.

USA is 2 away from Japan, but not in reach of my fleet. Either up by alaska or just straight down the pacific. I want to do other things with my fleet, I cannot babysit this crap. I leave and go do drops with tranports whatever. But I stay within 2, of anywhere USA wants to go. It is not hard, as he is kind of boxed in up there. I build many fighters this round. USA sees this. Just stops. Waits for more stuff to come in. That takes a turn. Next turn, I am either back just out of reach of his navy. Now it is even harder to approach. He has to wait for more reinforcements. On and on. I can stay at the territory next to Kiantzu or whatever it is called. Shuck to Japan, shuck back to drop. Stay 3 range away.

If I see this coming, maybe J2, I sneak a turn to make some subs, and then retreat, leaving a fighter build. With subs, it is even more dangerous for him to come into range.

And again, I am dealing with basically 100% USA in pacific, and I would estimate 50% UK. Minimal USSR stuff, maybe a Byr stack at start, maybe an inf or two here and there. I try to prioritize thaking out Soviet stuff. The best I can do to help the Germans in my view.