Playing Japan against the AI - strategy?

[GKar]

Hi fellow WaW players!
I've been playing a couple of WaW games but still consider myself a semi-newbie. [:'(] I'd like to know what should be done with Japan in a game against the AI - especially your strategies against the Western Allies, because I'm a bit clueless about this point.
I usually seize the Chinese provinces on the coast and try to keep them down with air power. Then I team up with Germany (AI controlled or also played by myself) against Russia or directly attack the Western Allies, occupying as many islands and resources as possible. But I found it very difficult to research anything with Japan because of the very limited industrial power and the supply costs to move fleets around - perhaps I'm moving them a bit too much or too fast. Then the WA subs get more and more nasty and I occasionally loose a big sea battle, making it costly to do anything more on the sea thereafter.

Note: I'm not looking for the optimised auto victory strategy, I'm looking to have some more fun with Japan without having to save myself with the 70 production points rule. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but I think I'm doing something wrong, especially in the naval warfare.

Feedback and hints will be welcome! [:)]

[dapamdg]

You seem to be doing things correctly. One of the best ways of securing an auto-victory is to double team the USSR. This will be harder for Japan to do with the new patch, but it is still probably the best option.

Personally, I never attack the WA until the Winter 43 turn when they would enter the war anyway. The Americans are just too big and bad. Keep them away as long as possible. This will also help your war in Russia as the Germans will need to divert far more forces to the Atlantic wall once the Americans are in the war, troops that would be better used in killing Russians.

[comradeleigh]

I know its an old topic, but i want to say this without a new thread.

GKar - Attacking russia is probably a great plan that often leads to good gains in the near future. Something that i do that should be done at the same time is to amass transports then. Whilst attacking russia and before America joins the war. Land at Alaska!

If you capature alaska then send a med army across the sea the same turn as the AI isnt very good at repelling the invasion. With america's factories under threat they wont be able to stop a good efficient victorious sweep of the japanese across the pacific.
Who needs to attack Hawii?

[aletoledo]

I'm not sure how the allied AI plays against it, but making super-cag as japan is really fun. get their speed up to 4 and in addition to the US CAG being unable to auto-strike back, it makes everything in the pacific within striking distance.

even against human opponents this is a lot of fun. usually they will see it coming, so I don't know how the AI would respond to your CAG researching.

[SeaMonkey]

Just so happens I've explored this parameter quite a bit. Since you are looking for fun as Japan against the AI, your only hope is try an historical pattern and hold out for a marginal victory...lots of fun IMO.

The massive CAG group is good, 5 carriers. Get the ASW(cags) research along with those LR fighters you have up two at least 2, perhaps light fleets also. Build transports, you will need them. Pull off PH and then retreat back to your empire which includes Phillipines and the SRA.

Build some tanks and take out China at PH time, but don't mess with the USSR, unless you are also playing Axis, as the AI is to dumb to pull off the Auto victory, or any other victory for that matter. Research infantry evasion, perhaps artillery also to hold off WA invasions. Hit and run tactics, peck and strike, subs do recon. If you take a semi-historical approach and give the AI some additional supply/transport, you are in for a good fight.

[GKar]

Thanks for your suggestions! I haven't been playing lately, but I already thought about having a few games in the next days. I'll definitely try out the super-CAG, and I'll bear in mind your ideas about semi-historicity as well, SeaMonkey. I've already done the double team Russia strategy a couple of times, so this time I'll probably leave them alone. And attacking Alaska early sounds a bit too gamey for my taste. [;)]

[aletoledo]

Thanks for your suggestions! I haven't been playing lately, but I already thought about having a few games in the next days. I'll definitely try out the super-CAG, and I'll bear in mind your ideas about semi-historicity as well, SeaMonkey. I've already done the double team Russia strategy a couple of times, so this time I'll probably leave them alone. And attacking Alaska early sounds a bit too gamey for my taste.

speaking about 'gamey', I've had the most fun with the gamey strategies. there is only so many times you can build subs against england and attack russia in 1941. after awhile those gamey tactics really brings out the true strategy of this game.

if you stick to pure history with W@W, you're going to be very disappointed with the game. there are way too many inconsistancies to make this much of a history simulation. as an example of one that recently bugged me, why is china's tactical air superior to russia's when I've never heard of china having a ww2 tactical bomber of any significance and the russian tac air was famous! :/

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo
as an example of one that recently bugged me, why is china's tactical air superior to russia's when I've never heard of china having a ww2 tactical bomber of any significance and the russian tac air was famous! :/

The dry and unromantic answer is game balance, I guess. [:o]
You're probably right about the limits of historical play, but I haven't done it too often yet. [:'(]

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

if you stick to pure history with W@W, you're going to be very disappointed with the game. there are way too many inconsistancies to make this much of a history simulation. as an example of one that recently bugged me, why is china's tactical air superior to russia's when I've never heard of china having a ww2 tactical bomber of any significance and the russian tac air was famous! :/

In this game Lend Lease is represented solely by transfering supply points. Therefore, the only way to simulate the hypothetical transfer of American built planes to China is to allow Chinese to build planes with similar characteristics as Western types but with increased time required to build them representing time lag in ferrying aircraft to China as well as material expenses to get them there in the first place.

So, Chinese do not actually build their own superior Chinese aircraft (they don't do this even today), but Chinese aircraft are actually Lend Leased American types.


Drax

[aletoledo]

So, Chinese do not actually build their own superior Chinese aircraft (they don't do this even today), but Chinese aircraft are actually Lend Leased American types.

I thought that at first, but then that would make the chinese plane identical to the WA plane, which its not.

I understand the balance issue and thats why I've never said anything until now, but I think its just an axample of how you can't play the game as a historical simulation.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I thought that at first, but then that would make the chinese plane identical to the WA plane, which its not.

The icon or the statistics? If it is statistics, you can take worse abilities of Chinese aircraft to the contemporary American as indication of worse training Chinese pilots received.


Drax

[EricN]

If you focus on Heavy Fleet evasion with Japan from the beginning and use them aggressively, you won't lose to the AI, pretty much regardless of what happens anywhere else. Make sure you have some way of handling WA subs. After you have a little breathing room, you can start boosting HF-AA and HF-Torp. Have fun watching the AI suicide itself onto your battleships.

[aletoledo]

The icon or the statistics? If it is statistics, you can take worse abilities of Chinese aircraft to the contemporary American as indication of worse training Chinese pilots received.

statistics, so what you're saying makes sense. still seems a stretch to me to say the russians had the worst ground attack plane of the war though.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

Statistics, so what you're saying makes sense. still seems a stretch to me to say the russians had the worst ground attack plane of the war though.

I checked the unitdata file for 1940 and all tactical air have equal Land Attack of 5. Same goes for 1941. In 1942 the land attack values are same. The sole change is in 1943 file where Stormoviks get Land Attack value of 6.

Looking at historical performance, I'd say that Luftwaffe was far better than British, American or Japanese in ground support in 1940 and 1941, yet this is not reflected in the game dats.

Now, the thing that bothers me is where did developers get the idea of armoured Soviet bombers? British Lancasters weren't all that armoured either.


Drax

[aletoledo]

actually I think we mostly think of the IL-2 being "a flying tank" and thus having a lot of survivability to it. this isn't reflected in the game at all. the russians could increase their evasion, but not any faster or more than anyone else.

perhaps I don't know the history behind the IL-2 very well, because the developers purposefully made the russian tac air the weakest.