Ultra-Passive Japan Strategy

[CrusssDaddy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm not looking for opinions. I'm hoping someone has tried the strategy and can speak toward how it went.

[davidachamberlain]

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.

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]

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I tried it. Didn't work.

[4personalbusiness]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.