Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy

Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

CrusssDaddy -> Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/6/2017 1:50:42 PM)
Anyone have experience doing an ultra-passive Japan strategy, i.e. no attacks into CHI cities, no DOWs, no event triggers that lead to US entry build-up? Share your experiences here, or if there's an AAR that demonstrates this strategy, please link it.

davidachamberlain -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/6/2017 4:20:58 PM)
Most games will proceed carefully to limit US entry as much as possible, but since it does proceed with increases every turn and German activities will also have an impact, I don't think the strategy will be all that effective long term and might limit the ability to keep up with the Chinese production. Most of the DOWs don't happen until around the same time as the DOW on the US to get the surprise attacks on US and CW. It is unusual for Japan to DOW on UK or France early. Most of the US entry rolls for other actions have low probabilities and the Chinese won't usually give up cities that easily. I also can't imagine Germany holding back on their own DOWs to prepare to conquer France, so those will still advance the US Entry. Dave

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/6/2017 5:07:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain Most games will proceed carefully to limit US entry as much as possible, but since it does proceed with increases every turn and German activities will also have an impact, I don't think the strategy will be all that effective long term and might limit the ability to keep up with the Chinese production. Most of the DOWs don't happen until around the same time as the DOW on the US to get the surprise attacks on US and CW. It is unusual for Japan to DOW on UK or France early. Most of the US entry rolls for other actions have low probabilities and the Chinese won't usually give up cities that easily. I also can't imagine Germany holding back on their own DOWs to prepare to conquer France, so those will still advance the US Entry. Dave If you don't have knowledge pertaining to the question that was asked yet feel compelled to reply regardless, it's more expedient and helpful to just say, "I don't know." But you also shouldn't feel compelled to reply.

juntoalmar -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/6/2017 6:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy If you don't have knowledge pertaining to the question that was asked yet feel compelled to reply regardless, it's more expedient and helpful to just say, "I don't know." But you also shouldn't feel compelled to reply. His reply was interesting to me (and most probably more informative than yours...[:-]). Anyway, I like this subject, so if you have a different opinion to David I'd love to hear. I feel Japan is the hardest country to play with.

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/6/2017 8:47:31 PM)
I'm not looking for opinions. I'm hoping someone has tried the strategy and can speak toward how it went.

davidachamberlain -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 1:36:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy If you don't have knowledge pertaining to the question that was asked yet feel compelled to reply regardless, it's more expedient and helpful to just say, "I don't know." But you also shouldn't feel compelled to reply. I think your question and your understanding of the game, the history, and the strategies is a bit naive. Either your thoughts were not complete enough when you posted the question or you really have not thought through the alternatives in the strategy and how to execute it. I suggest that if you are interested in meaningful discussion, that you should probably not post such questions. quote: ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy I'm not looking for opinions. I'm hoping someone has tried the strategy and can speak toward how it went. Just so you know, it is more than just an "opinion". It is well thought about analysis based on experience with quite a few games with different strategies and their resulting outcomes and attempt to help you to better understand how what you are mentioning compares with a typical game. I think my biggest mistake in the posting was probably giving you more credit than you probably deserve about the standard historical strategy and the alternatives to consider. The point that you are missing is that the typical strategy is somewhat passive - trying to avoid US entry advancing. This even occurs with Germany against Russia in the early stages trying to avoid capturing factories to avoid US entry impacts. Avoiding occupying cities is not really passive. Either you are attacking and trying to weaken China or you are not. When you are not, you are risking leaving behind a stronger China when you are are busy in the Pacific. There are very few DOWs that occur. Think about it. Declaring war on the neighboring countries is declaring war on CW or France. There are very few Neutral countries. Essentially, your passive strategy is the typical strategy, but usually, Japan WILL take over cities to avoid leaving locations where China can build reinforcements. Dave

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 1:54:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain quote: ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy If you don't have knowledge pertaining to the question that was asked yet feel compelled to reply regardless, it's more expedient and helpful to just say, "I don't know." But you also shouldn't feel compelled to reply. I think your question and your understanding of the game, the history, and the strategies is a bit naive. Either your thoughts were not complete enough when you posted the question or you really have not thought through the alternatives in the strategy and how to execute it. I suggest that if you are interested in meaningful discussion, that you should probably not post such questions. quote: ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy I'm not looking for opinions. I'm hoping someone has tried the strategy and can speak toward how it went. Just so you know, it is more than just an "opinion". It is well thought about analysis based on experience with quite a few games with different strategies and their resulting outcomes and attempt to help you to better understand how what you are mentioning compares with a typical game. I think my biggest mistake in the posting was probably giving you more credit than you probably deserve about the standard historical strategy and the alternatives to consider. The point that you are missing is that the typical strategy is somewhat passive - trying to avoid US entry advancing. This even occurs with Germany against Russia in the early stages trying to avoid capturing factories to avoid US entry impacts. Avoiding occupying cities is not really passive. Either you are attacking and trying to weaken China or you are not. When you are not, you are risking leaving behind a stronger China when you are are busy in the Pacific. There are very few DOWs that occur. Think about it. Declaring war on the neighboring countries is declaring war on CW or France. There are very few Neutral countries. Essentially, your passive strategy is the typical strategy, but usually, Japan WILL take over cities to avoid leaving locations where China can build reinforcements. Dave Apology accepted.

brian brian -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 2:53:15 AM)
Bushido does not include a word for ‘Sitzkrieg’. But WiF doesn’t have any role-playing rules, players impose those on themselves. Just the other day I started a solitaire game to explore an absolutist line of play for the Axis re: US Entry. But as David notes, the Euro-Axis make more of those decisions. Haven’t finished the first turn yet. Some of the Japanese choices involve economics - on the paper map (not on the MWiF map tho) they might need Chengchow to transport a resource. Si-An is an even larger economic swing hex. And one of the southern resources is going to require taking a city to ever use it. Occupy Indo-China is a resource/chit trade-off decision as well.

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 3:51:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian Bushido does not include a word for ‘Sitzkrieg’. But WiF doesn’t have any role-playing rules, players impose those on themselves. Just the other day I started a solitaire game to explore an absolutist line of play for the Axis re: US Entry. But as David notes, the Euro-Axis make more of those decisions. Haven’t finished the first turn yet. Some of the Japanese choices involve economics - on the paper map (not on the MWiF map tho) they might need Chengchow to transport a resource. Si-An is an even larger economic swing hex. And one of the southern resources is going to require taking a city to ever use it. Occupy Indo-China is a resource/chit trade-off decision as well. Thank you. Please report back when you've gone deeper into your game, assuming your brand of absolutism is aimed at delaying US intervention.

michaelbaldur -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 5:25:49 AM)
from my point of view there are little to gain from being passive. yes you can save a chit or 2, but in the long run USA get alot of chits, yes maybe you can delay oil embargo a turn, or maybe 2. but in 1942 USA get 2 free chits a turn, so you are in the war between sep/oct 1941 - mar/apr 1942, no matter what you do. yes you could delay the Dow of CW/NEI, but that mean alot of low production months. Malaysia/nei is 6 resources.

michaelbaldur -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 5:36:27 AM)
on another note, I seen Japan survive the war. but that was simply because the US player was to focused on Europa. the us player, really did not want to risk his carriers, so he was passive. but it was that game that we changed the game. from a country control, to a area control. so a player controlled all units in his area. it worked really fine. in that game. the CW player took over the pacific, and the us player handled europa. the only issue, was that they had to agree on activity and reinforcement. but with a single player concentreated on Japan. it was close to getting conquered. in the late game is it a common mistake for a player to focus on 1 area, simply because therer are to many units on the map.

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 2:47:33 PM)
Guys, I understand ultra-passive is non-optimal for Japan winning and probably not fun for a Japan player. As brian brian notes, I play solo in more of a role playing style, not necessarily looking for best strategy. That's why I'm not asking for advice or tutoring. I'm asking for actual examples and descriptions, if they exist. If they don't that's fine. However please refrain from offering commentary or critique, unless it pertains to your actual game experience playing as or against an ultra-passive Japan, or links where I can find same.

Centuur -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 5:37:05 PM)
If an "ultra passive" game means that the Japanese is simply staying put where it is at start of the game, I haven't seen one. However, I did see a game once, where the Japanese player was playing passive and did a "sitzkrieg" in China (with some attacks to make sure the Chinese army didn't become too big to handle). They only claimed French Indo-China and that was it. No Chinese cities were taken at all. Strangely enough, the US entered that game in the last turn of 1941 (if I remembered it right), because of a very aggressive German player, closing the Med. I think that the Japanese DoW'ed the US and the CW at the same time, the turn or impulse (don't know the exact timing anymore) after the US had DoW'ed the Euroaxis and took a super-combined. We were not able to end that game, unfortunately and I don't remember exactly how things were at game end.

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 6:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur If an "ultra passive" game means that the Japanese is simply staying put where it is at start of the game, I haven't seen one. However, I did see a game once, where the Japanese player was playing passive and did a "sitzkrieg" in China (with some attacks to make sure the Chinese army didn't become too big to handle). They only claimed French Indo-China and that was it. No Chinese cities were taken at all. Strangely enough, the US entered that game in the last turn of 1941 (if I remembered it right), because of a very aggressive German player, closing the Med. I think that the Japanese DoW'ed the US and the CW at the same time, the turn or impulse (don't know the exact timing anymore) after the US had DoW'ed the Euroaxis and took a super-combined. We were not able to end that game, unfortunately and I don't remember exactly how things were at game end. Yes exactly, thank you. Ultra-passive is indeed sitzkrieg with regard to China, excepting degrading units outside cities, cutting supply/resource transport as opportunities arise, tac and strat bombing, etc. Thanks for sharing.

paulderynck -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 11:22:57 PM)
I tried it. Didn't work.

4personalbusiness -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/7/2017 11:59:37 PM)
After eating seven California rolls washed down with a gallon of cheap sake, I once dreamt of employing a passive Japan strategy and, in my dream, the Allied players were so touched that they surrendered en masse resulting in a decisive Japanese victory and world hegemony. Not sure if that counts as actual game experience, but thought it should be reported nevertheless. Pete

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/8/2017 3:40:59 AM)
Not sure this qualifies for your question: I am currently in a game with an excellent opponent. We are near the end of J/A'41. My strategy as Japan is very passive, but not "ultra". 1. No attacks into CHI cities. 2. No DOW's so far, but of course need to do the typical DOW's late '41/early '42. 3. Event triggers so far: Align Siam (US did not get a chit for this), and aligning FIC (US did get a chit...seriously considered waiting for this until mid-late'42, but did not want to burden Japan's action limits/units later in the game. Trade flowing into China through the Burma Road, Japan has not closed it. I say burden because Vichy FIC had a 1 point Chinese partisan in Hanoi. Germany doing Spain/Gib strategy. US entry is at (prior to September '41): Europe pool 31/23, Jap pool 21/16. Options taken: 1,4,7,9,11,15,16,20. Japan keeping China reasonable through what has been so far a successful strat bombing campaign (Lan Chow, Sian, Changsha).

CrusssDaddy -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/8/2017 4:37:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 Not sure this qualifies for your question: I am currently in a game with an excellent opponent. We are near the end of J/A'41. My strategy as Japan is very passive, but not "ultra". 1. No attacks into CHI cities. 2. No DOW's so far, but of course need to do the typical DOW's late '41/early '42. 3. Event triggers so far: Align Siam (US did not get a chit for this), and aligning FIC (US did get a chit...seriously considered waiting for this until mid-late'42, but did not want to burden Japan's action limits/units later in the game. Trade flowing into China through the Burma Road, Japan has not closed it. I say burden because Vichy FIC had a 1 point Chinese partisan in Hanoi. Germany doing Spain/Gib strategy. US entry is at (prior to September '41): Europe pool 31/23, Jap pool 21/16. Options taken: 1,4,7,9,11,15,16,20. Japan keeping China reasonable through what has been so far a successful strat bombing campaign (Lan Chow, Sian, Changsha). Thanks, this is excellent. What have your builds looked like?

Dabrion -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/9/2017 7:06:20 PM)
I have not tried this (and wouldn't) but have been on the "not-receiving" end once. The outcome in short: Japan was oil starved and averaged about 10BP production with only synth for oil supply. US set flags on some islands in the Pacific perimeter but mostly ignored Japan. Russia/China drove them off the continent and Japan survived with the Home Islands untouched. In all.. that was to the detriment of the Euro-Axis, which got a lot more than the usual share of love.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/9/2017 7:47:48 PM)
quote: quote:ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 Not sure this qualifies for your question: I am currently in a game with an excellent opponent. We are near the end of J/A'41. My strategy as Japan is very passive, but not "ultra". 1. No attacks into CHI cities. 2. No DOW's so far, but of course need to do the typical DOW's late '41/early '42. 3. Event triggers so far: Align Siam (US did not get a chit for this), and aligning FIC (US did get a chit...seriously considered waiting for this until mid-late'42, but did not want to burden Japan's action limits/units later in the game. Trade flowing into China through the Burma Road, Japan has not closed it. I say burden because Vichy FIC had a 1 point Chinese partisan in Hanoi. Germany doing Spain/Gib strategy. US entry is at (prior to September '41): Europe pool 31/23, Jap pool 21/16. Options taken: 1,4,7,9,11,15,16,20. Japan keeping China reasonable through what has been so far a successful strat bombing campaign (Lan Chow, Sian, Changsha). Thanks, this is excellent. What have your builds looked like? I need to pre-qualify this a second time. Since the Soviet/Japanese surrender option is not programed (we both would definitely play with this option if it were available), we decided on a house rule that USSR/Japan can not DOW each other until 1945. Obviously builds would be very different and ground unit intensive. Here are the builds leading up to Japanese DOW vs CW (S/O'41) S/O'39 (10): 2xTRS(1st cycle)(4), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xAMPH(1st)(3), 1xTERR(2). N/D'39 (10): 2xCV(2nd)(4), 1xCP(1), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xNAV2(2), 1xTERR(2). J/F'40 (15): 2xCP(2), 1xTRS(1st)(2), 2xSUB(1st)(2), 1xPilot(2), 2xAMPH(1st)(6). M/A'40 (15): 1xTRS(2nd)(3), 1xTRS(2nd)(4), SYNTH (8). M/J'40 (15): 1xMIL(2), 1xNAV2(2), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xAMPH(2nd)(4), 1xPilot(2), 2xcp's(2), saved 2. J/A'40 (15(saved 2 oil)): 1xMIL(2), 1xNAV2(2), 1xTRS(2nd)(4), 1xCVP(1), BB Yamato(5), 1xcp(1). S/O'40 (15): 1xMIL(2), 1xRepair CA(1), 1xNAV3(3), 1xCVP(1), 2xAMPH(2nd)(8). N/D'40 (15): 1xMIL(2), 1xMTN(4), 1xSUB(2nd)(1), 1xCVP(1), 1xNAV4(4), 1xPilot(2), 1xcp(1). J/F'41 (15): 1xMIL(2), HQ-I(5), 1xNAV3(3), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xPilot(2), 2xCVP's(2). M/A'41 (16): 1xGAR(2), 2xFTR2(4), 2xPilots(4), 2xSUBs(2nd)(3), 1xcp(1), 2xCVP(2). M/J'41 (16): 1xINF(3), 1xINF div(2), 3xPilots(6), 1xFTR3(3), 1xCVP(1), 1xCP(1). J/A'41 (17): 1xINF(3), 1xMTN div(2), 1xFTR2(2), 1xRepair BB(2), 1xSUB(2nd)(2), 1xCP(1), 1xCVP(1), 2xPilot(4). Critic/comments welcome.

Orm -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/10/2017 6:21:07 AM)
Maybe more land units build the first impulse and less later? That way you get more land units early, to hunt down aggressive Chinese units and garrison for partisan hunting.

rkr1958 -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/10/2017 10:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote: quote:ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 Not sure this qualifies for your question: I am currently in a game with an excellent opponent. We are near the end of J/A'41. My strategy as Japan is very passive, but not "ultra". 1. No attacks into CHI cities. 2. No DOW's so far, but of course need to do the typical DOW's late '41/early '42. 3. Event triggers so far: Align Siam (US did not get a chit for this), and aligning FIC (US did get a chit...seriously considered waiting for this until mid-late'42, but did not want to burden Japan's action limits/units later in the game. Trade flowing into China through the Burma Road, Japan has not closed it. I say burden because Vichy FIC had a 1 point Chinese partisan in Hanoi. Germany doing Spain/Gib strategy. US entry is at (prior to September '41): Europe pool 31/23, Jap pool 21/16. Options taken: 1,4,7,9,11,15,16,20. Japan keeping China reasonable through what has been so far a successful strat bombing campaign (Lan Chow, Sian, Changsha). Thanks, this is excellent. What have your builds looked like? I need to pre-qualify this a second time. Since the Soviet/Japanese surrender option is not programed (we both would definitely play with this option if it were available), we decided on a house rule that USSR/Japan can not DOW each other until 1945. Obviously builds would be very different and ground unit intensive. Here are the builds leading up to Japanese DOW vs CW (S/O'41) S/O'39 (10): 2xTRS(1st cycle)(4), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xAMPH(1st)(3), 1xTERR(2). N/D'39 (10): 2xCV(2nd)(4), 1xCP(1), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xNAV2(2), 1xTERR(2). J/F'40 (15): 2xCP(2), 1xTRS(1st)(2), 2xSUB(1st)(2), 1xPilot(2), 2xAMPH(1st)(6). M/A'40 (15): 1xTRS(2nd)(3), 1xTRS(2nd)(4), SYNTH (8). M/J'40 (15): 1xMIL(2), 1xNAV2(2), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xAMPH(2nd)(4), 1xPilot(2), 2xcp's(2), saved 2. J/A'40 (15(saved 2 oil)): 1xMIL(2), 1xNAV2(2), 1xTRS(2nd)(4), 1xCVP(1), BB Yamato(5), 1xcp(1). S/O'40 (15): 1xMIL(2), 1xRepair CA(1), 1xNAV3(3), 1xCVP(1), 2xAMPH(2nd)(8). N/D'40 (15): 1xMIL(2), 1xMTN(4), 1xSUB(2nd)(1), 1xCVP(1), 1xNAV4(4), 1xPilot(2), 1xcp(1). J/F'41 (15): 1xMIL(2), HQ-I(5), 1xNAV3(3), 1xSUB(1st)(1), 1xPilot(2), 2xCVP's(2). M/A'41 (16): 1xGAR(2), 2xFTR2(4), 2xPilots(4), 2xSUBs(2nd)(3), 1xcp(1), 2xCVP(2). M/J'41 (16): 1xINF(3), 1xINF div(2), 3xPilots(6), 1xFTR3(3), 1xCVP(1), 1xCP(1). J/A'41 (17): 1xINF(3), 1xMTN div(2), 1xFTR2(2), 1xRepair BB(2), 1xSUB(2nd)(2), 1xCP(1), 1xCVP(1), 2xPilot(4). Critic/comments welcome. What about a Synth oil on the first turn? I always do because I feel that oil is Japan's Achilles heal.

AlbertN -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/11/2017 7:45:38 AM)
They get the 1st synth in '40 iirc. I tend to do it the 1st turn of '40 in fact.

Jaimainsoyyo -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/11/2017 11:09:02 AM)
If Japan could maintain a constant strategic bombing on China Factories that strategy could be satisfactory , but Japan should forget that strategy when Oil Embargo started.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/11/2017 3:59:48 PM)
quote: They get the 1st synth in '40 iirc. I tend to do it the 1st turn of '40 in fact. I don't like to build huge ticket items on the 1st turn of a year (SYNTH, O-chits, etc...), especially early in the game. The SYNTH in this case is over 50% of Japan's BP's in 1940. I prioritized the 3 new 1940 lift instead.

brian brian -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/11/2017 4:48:44 PM)
To really bomb, bomb, bomb the Chinese the Japanese can really use one of their "Sally" LND3 bombers. And they might draw the "Nell" NAV3 with only one bombing factor and need to build that one (which they will need for war in the Pacific anyway). And then the long range 1940 "Zero" FTR2 are pretty useful too. Much of this because the prime Chinese hex to bomb is Chungking, at some distance from the Japanese lines as it is the only one which offers the chance to hit more than one Production Point. And a smart Chinese player will hold their FTR back for defense of that hex. But many Chinese players would rather use, and inevitably lose, their FTR on the front lines, where it is more "fun". Later in the war Japanese bombers are helpful in holding off the ChiComms in particular, so they won't regret these builds when the best air units inevitably have to withdraw from China to defend sea zones. My current solitaire game is more an exploration of a German opening in the West. But it rolled Rain & Storm for Sep/Oct 39 and the whole thing is moot. I think the Japanese can profit from a "mostly" Passive strategy far more than an "Ultra" passive strategy. WiF rarely rewards an "absolute" approach to most things.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/13/2017 4:00:34 PM)
I Buy every NAV I can get my hands on, even the "Susie" NAV2. As Japan, I find it a tough decision to buy LND3's with so many other pressing needs, but I do see the value and need to try and squeeze it into the budget some how.

AlbertN -> RE: Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy (12/13/2017 8:00:05 PM)
LND3 tend to have many "flying coffee machine" type of airplanes to receive an investment, unless the war is going very well for Japan. I'd rather have 3 CVPs than 1 LND3 to have an optimal CV squadron as long as they're efficient and have somehow subpar replacements after the naval battle (which unavoidable brings the loss of your best CVPs - at least FTR wise).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125