Advice on Japanese Strategy

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I would prefer to have the USSR conquer Persia on turn 1.

Sure, but Persia makes a lot more sense for Japan then for Russia. Russia can conquer it, but Japan can then grab all 3 oil and DoW Russia to keep them - especially since the US probably lost an entry chit when Russia DoW'd Persia, so even giving them one back (on a lower probability) would be a wash. And then JP can start creating problems in Siberia, since they're at war anyway.

Or suppose Japan does nothing. While Russia is neutral the Persian oil is of little use to them. They have no CPs to pick up the two not on rail lines and the Wallies are not allowed to do it for them (2008 Errata). In MWiF all they can do is store the one in Bushehr and use the other each turn for the small amount of oil they use while neutral.

Of the those two choices though, I think my JP would definitely DoW Russia. The cardinal sin for JP would be to not have at least two Divs and 2 4-range CAs available in Canton or Hainan.

The best thing about a Russian controlled Persia is it gives them access to Iraq.

The problem with the USSR however, is that they are confined to combined actions and have to use the precious land moves they have to make sure that they can claim Bessarabia, move into the Baltics and Eastern Poland. There is the garrison on the border with Germany too... Apart from this they have to move the Chinese Communists with those land moves too. It isn't that easy to attack Persia, if the Japanese are doing a good job in China with making sure the Chicomms need to move or otherwise they are in big trouble.

Sure, the odd winter turn might come across (like it did in my AAR) where the USSR can attack and grab Persia, because it don't need to move Chicomm units (bad weather in Temperate, good weather in the Med). Iraq? You need to move some units before you can get a shot at that place. And if you have a bad die roll (like I had on the attack on Teheran with the USSR), losing units means that capturing Iraq will take a lot longer than expected.

The trick for the Japanese is to try to make sure that the USSR has to move Chicomms, so they can't free the 3 to 4 land moves they have to make to take Persia and later Iraq...

Going to war over Persia with the Japanese? Well, I think the Japanese land units can be put to better use in China, also because if war between the USSR and Japan breaks out, the USSR gets 5 reserve corps and the possibility to build MIL (and the Chicomms and the USSR aren't limited anymore by having to take combined actions).

Even with the US entry actions balancing due to the DoW by the USSR on Persia and a subsequent DoW by Japan on the USSR, I don't think the Japanese can take the risk of having a war in China and Manchuria happening at the same time. This also depends on the strategy chosen by the Euroaxis. Is it Barbarossa? Than I might DoW the USSR with the Japanese. If it isn't, I would not do so. Let the USSR DoW Japan instead in that case, upsetting US entry...

So is it a cardinal sin not to have two divisions on cruisers in Hainan and Canton? I believe the answer is: "only if it is a Barbarossa after France" otherwise it isn't...

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

It also shuts down the whole 42 Barb coming up from Persia and Iraq. If you've got Soviets dug in around Tehran, that invasion route quickly becomes useless.

[brian brian]

Personally I think Japan can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can push the Chinese back and take things from the Russians simultaneously, because of their power on the coast and the good range of their land-based air, although using their air on land is a matter of repeated bombing runs via re-org due to the low factors.

I agree that it is best for Japan to keep the USA out of their hair for as long as possible. But a determined effort in China does generate US entry rolls on it's own. Attacking minors is only a 3 roll. Attacking the Russians is only about a 7 I think.

Also, even if Japan makes a determined effort against China only, they might not conquer the place, and in doing so, pass on other rewarding options.

Another thing to consider particularly in MWiF which is essentially a 2-player game still, sort of, is that Japan is part of the Axis. Playing Japan in a way that doesn't coordinate with Germany and Italy doesn't gain the Axis as much in total. If Germany is attacking Russia at all, true of every game except a determined Sitzkrieg or Sea Lion, Japan should take what it can from the Russians. If Germany is invading the UK, Japan should pile on vs CW possessions in Asia, though not of course until the USA is very close to joining the war. The rewards are then better for each of Ge and Jp. In multi-player, Japan and Italy are frequently paired. Then an anti-CW strategy by the Axis is a good choice for the Jp/It player.

[WarHunter]

Ultimately, Japan has to plan for the taking the 4 hexes. Manila, Batavia, Singapore and Rabual. How you view each as a priority relative to each other is personal taste.
Truthfully, until i see some real action between 2 players on some kind of NetPlay, it is just theory about how to do it. Adapting to the new asian map is part of the planning.

I did a little investigation and this is what i found.

The China Sea has 28 ports in MWiF, vs 23 for the boardgame

The South China Sea has 26 ports for MWiF vs 20 for the boardgame.

Funny how the Bay of Bengal is the same number of ports for both, 12 ports.

If you want to control a seazone. You need to control all the ports of that sea zone. Sure its just a few more ports. But that can translate into more impulses. More impulses into more turns. More turns into bad weather odds for landing. A slope that can make timing critical.
Oh and those pesky Americans and the countdown clock. They are not looking to do Japan any favors.

Just some food for thought if you have yet to really look at the Pacific with your super duper maglight lens.

[Extraneous]

paulderynck is the portion of the 2008 Errata you refer to included in the MWiF rules? If so are you allowed to state the MWiF rule?


1939 Sep/Oct Impulse 1 (1st Axis impulse) - Germany must DoW Poland (No other DoW's are allowed).
1939 Sep/Oct Impulse 2 (1st Allied impulse) - The CW and France must DoW Germany (No other DoW's are allowed).
The USSR Claims Eastern Poland (this is not a DoW)
The USSR uses 1 land move for Eastern Poland.

USSR vs. Persia
1939 Sep/Oct Impulse 4 (2nd Allied impulse) - The USSR makes a DoW on Persia with Japan aligning Persia.
1939 Sep/Oct Impulse 5 (3rd Axis impulse) or later? - Japan makes a DoW on the USSR.
Because Persia should be conquered on turn 1.

When the USSR is a neutral major power it is restricted to a Pass or Combined action.

USSR Combined action:
4 air missions, 1 naval move, 5 land moves (second only to Germany), 2 land attacks, 1 rail move.

The USSR uses:
1 land move for Bessarabia.
3 land moves for Persia.
4 total land moves.

Japan vs. Persia
1939 Sep/Oct Impulse 3 (2nd Axis impulse) - Italy makes a DoW on someone.
Japan moves naval units to Mogadishu, Italian Somaliland.

1939 Nov/Dec Impulse 1 (1st Axis impulse) or later?
Japan makes a DoW on Persia and invades with the USSR aligning Persia.

Here is a slightly obscure rule that may have been overlooked.

4.2 Reinforcements
Put your on-map naval reinforcements into a port you control in the unit’s home country. However, you can place 1 convoy point a turn in either a Commonwealth home country other than the United Kingdom or an aligned (not conquered) minor country [Note: this is only possible if you are playing with Ships in Flames].

The USSR would be able to build naval units in Persia and get the oil out.

While I agree Japan may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

In my opinion Japan invading Persia early in the war, while making a DoW against the USSR, and trying to keep the Chinese communists down. Is the equivalent of walking, chewing gum, dancing on the head of a pin, juggling chainsaws, while gargling peanut butter at the same time.

Or the short version: Not a good Idea.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

paulderynck is the portion of the 2008 Errata you refer to included in the MWiF rules? If so are you allowed to state the MWiF rule?

Yes for sure. Under 13.6.1 Resources, sub heading: "Transporting Resources by Sea". Check page 101 of your copy of RAC, about four-fifths of the way down in the right hand column.

[Extraneous]

Does it have somthing to do with this line [&:]

ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf

Active major powers may contribute to the convoy chain of any other major power on the same side.

[paulderynck]

You're getting much warmer! Like I said, check your copy of the RAC.

[Extraneous]

Sorry, I do not have a copy of the RAC.

If I did it would be impossible to prove I am not in violation of the NDA.

As per my agreement on my request for removal from the Beta test I have erased all copies of MWiF.

This is why all my post deal with references to the WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf and not the RAC.

No maps for screenshots, no RAC, and no game. I search the forums or if I have questions I have to hope to receive correct information from some one in the forum who has MWiF.

I have the unique prospective of having been part of the Beta and at the same time have no more knowledge of the game than a prospective purchaser of the game.

[brian brian]

No, I would not attack China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia all at the same time, very early in the war.

If the Russians enter Persia I would immediately Declare War on them to get the Persian Oil, unless the CW was very, very good at getting it themselves. Regardless of what turn it was.

Otherwise I would open against the ChiComms in the fall, push Chiang around in the winter, hit Mao again in the summer of '40, and then invade Saudi Arabia later in the summer when the 2-4 SNLF division is ready. An advance built Yamashita would arrive in September to give the Japanese a lot of options on the ground. It helps for Japan to scrap some early TRS to be sure to have the long range ones available in numbers.

Against good Russian play, I would not attack them until M/J 41 along with the opening of their war in Europe. Perhaps the same turn given a '42 Barbarossa, to suck them into Siberia. For a '42 question, a lot would depend on map positions that can not be postulated much in advance very well.

By the fall of '41 they might have 18-19 BP a turn cranking out, with gas for their units arriving by tracing to the Middle East, which will keep the IJN mobile somewhat for free, until sometime in 1942. Then it is easy to build the SYNTH plants. Early on, I'd rather have the extra units to go take resources with.

I don't feel the Japanese can play conservatively, building the SYNTH early, attacking only in China, to have the best chance of winning.


It is interesting to consider how many ports there are on the 2 China Seas. But you get them all simply by taking Singapore, Batavia, Hanoi, and Manila (perhaps Timor is neutral). Changing them to Japanese control is generally not the problem. Keeping the West out is. But some Allied play can certainly make it difficult / time-consuming to take them, and that's where you need all the Build Points you can get. Most Allies idiotically ship MacArthur back to the USA, as if the Americans can't afford 5 Build Points.




And I'm really not sure why the idea of building a Convoy Point in Persia was brought up. I have had the Germans or Italians do this in games. I guess it would be handy for a Japanese one to appear in a Persian port. But if the Russians conquer Persia, they can not build one, though I regularly have the Russians build 4 CP in the Caspian Sea.

If the Russians botch their attack on Teheran, Japanese assets can appear to make their second go more challenging. The Russians don't generally bring FTR cover into Persia with them …. but one bad throw of the dice, and they might find themselves needing it.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

Can an Active country transport RP for a
neutral country?

Example: Russia is neutral, CW is at war
with Germany. Russia has conquered
Persia. May the CW player use two CW
CP’s to transport the two oil in Bushehr
through the Persian Gulf to the port city of
Bandar Shapur?

No! Erratacised in the
2008 WiF Annual
.
Date 28/12/2007

13.6.1
: Active major powers may contribute to the
convoy chain of any other major power on the same
side

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
It is interesting to consider how many ports there are on the 2 China Seas. But you get them all simply by taking Singapore, Batavia, Hanoi, and Manila (perhaps Timor is neutral). Changing them to Japanese control is generally not the problem. Keeping the West out is. But some Allied play can certainly make it difficult / time-consuming to take them, and that's where you need all the Build Points you can get. Most Allies idiotically ship MacArthur back to the USA, as if the Americans can't afford 5 Build Points.

I would argue on behalf of idiotic choices. Bringing MacArthur back to Pearl Harbor is a trap designed to lull the Japanese player into a false sense of victory. The real Victory is in the words, "I shall Return".

[paulderynck]

I too have sometimes brought MacArthur out to Pearl. He cannot be rebuilt until 3 turns after the Japanese attack, whereas along with Nimitz in Pearl when war breaks out, you can take a naval and bring 7 CVs out from the West Coast and re-org them in one impulse. Other good BBs and CAs can tag along and be re-orged by TRSs.

Suddenly, on only their first impulse after Japan has attacked the US, they are staring at a very credible US Navy sitting in Pearl with lots of juicy targets that need to be protected.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Sorry, I do not have a copy of the RAC.

...I have to hope to receive correct information from some one in the forum who has MWiF.

So what you're saying is: you believe me if I post a quote from RAC but not if I simply make the statement that this rule is in MWiF? How do you know the quote you want isn't a creation of mine?

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

If I did it would be impossible to prove I am not in violation of the NDA.

No, it would be impossible to prove you had not purchased the game.

[Extraneous]

I'm sure you don't want to be purposely supply misleading information. But mistakes can happen. When they do I expect the others here in the forums to point out any problems or misunderstandings.

Just like everyone else I have to hope for the best and trust other peoples posts. Because there are always others here in the forums with MWiF that can check and point out any errors.

Therefore if you state the rule exists in MWiF then it exists until proven otherwise. I do reserve the right to question any post quoting the RAC that in my view directly conflicts with the RAW (and I often do).

If I belive a post is poorly witten and hard to understand for somone new to the forums you know I will point this out.


For years the members of the forums have held me to a diferent standard in my posts that they refuse to follow. They have required me to post my refferences to the rules while they do not. Now we have new visitors to the forums interested in MWiF.

Which do you think is more clear to a new visitor to the forums? My post with its references to the RAW or someone that just makes a statement and assumes that they can understand what is being discussed.

Why do I mention this again? In collage I took a course in "Creative Writing" (for an english credit) there they taught us to write to the level of our audience. That is what we should all be doing here in the forums.

[Klydon]

I have been sort of watching the ping pong of for and against Persian action for the Japanese, etc.

May I suggest for a rookie/inexperienced Japanese player that they forget about Persia for the first several games. To pull off that maneuver is complicated and takes certain conditions in the game and in the meantime, basic strategy may suffer.

From my own limited experience, the best thing the Japanese can do to keep the Russians out of Persia is to set up to just absolutely hammer the Chi-Coms. This will have an effect throughout Russia in terms of gambits because the Russians must use combined moves. If they are busy using most of their land moves trying to keep the Chi-Coms from getting mowed over, then they don't really have a lot of time to get ambitious elsewhere. From the Chinese standpoint of view, they simply can't write off the Chi-Coms. This releases way too many Japanese ground units to be used elsewhere, be it in Russia or a campaign based out of the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf region or a trip to Oz.

The entire point for the novice Japanese player in China is to either score a knock out or to so cripple the Chinese that the Japanese can withdraw forces for use elsewhere without undue pressure from the Chinese.

One final note: because of the state of MWiF, a limited peace with Russia is not in play right now unless it is agreed to by players or if someone doing a sandbox essentially lets it happen. This can and does change what happens in regards to Russia. I have basically written off any campaign against Russia with the Japanese (or any campaign against the Japanese with Russia) because of it.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Well, neutrality pacts don't last forever..... Sometimes I try to do a near end of turn DoW on the Soviets with Japan in ND 39, force a peace, and then when 41 rolls around and my German counterpart is battering down the gates..... nothing can stop me from declaring war and charging in as long as I have room to attack.

[Centuur]

However, I really do miss that optional rule... It is an important one to have available, for both sides.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Which do you think is more clear to a new visitor to the forums? My post with its references to the RAW or someone that just makes a statement and assumes that they can understand what is being discussed.

In collage I took a course in "Creative Writing"...

What would be clear would be for you to buy the game and quote from RAC if you want to dispute statements about the rules in this forum. Quoting from RAW is obviously confusing to a newcomer when there are clarifications and deviations clearly published in the rules for MWiF.

When I was in collage I learned how to make a work of art that is made by attaching pieces of different materials (such as paper, cloth, or wood) to a flat surface. [:)]

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Extraneou


While I agree Japan may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

In my opinion Japan invading Persia early in the war, while making a DoW against the USSR, and trying to keep the Chinese communists down. Is the equivalent of walking, chewing gum, dancing on the head of a pin, juggling chainsaws, while gargling peanut butter at the same time.

Or the short version: Not a good Idea.

Hilarious.

I was thinking it would be similarly difficult, but perhaps less circus-like myself.

The new map scale really benefits Russia. I am concerned (TM).