Axis and Allies Anniversary Series: Video 7, Japan

[@vitalsigns6403]

Good work as always Captain! I was not aware you could build an IC on an island territory. Very cool. Many salutes to you!

[@christopherwilson2606]

Fantastic video! I'll be watching this one more than once.

[@johnschmidt1049]

I used this turn one in a game I recently played. I ended up getting India and building an ic on India. Germany ended up taking Russia just before I could blitz in with tanks. It was a fun game. The first turn, I lost four Japanese infantry to two Chinese infantry. I had really bad rolls. So I couldn’t take two Chinese territories the first turn. That was a pain later in the game. But it still has a happy ending!

[@sdallas68]

Good video and food for thought. Side note, would eventually like a concise video on your game upgrades. I like the shading on the roundels and drab finish on units.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Thanks for the comment. Regarding NOs and any changes, the only 'change' was what I noted in the video. Make sure you get Kwangtung and the Philippines on J1. Japan has the easiest NOs of any power and should be collecting from all of them by J2 or J3 at the latest. I have a trio of videos in my channel that details my pieces. I wouldn't have much to add to how I did my anniversary game but many thanks for the compliment.

[@hellonwheels9596]

Another great video. Definitely something to think about on our next game

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Thanks HoW. Tell the corporal I said "Hello". =)

[@hellonwheels9596]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 will do. Have to arrange a game sometime

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@hellonwheels9596 anytime. My email is [e-mail]

[@pasbaf]

l have a question, do you think that by turning off the national objectives and putting one more british infantry in egypt the game is 100% balanced or it's still more towards the axis?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

As of this post, no. Subsequent playings of this game with only an infantry make me feel that the Chinese infantry is also necessary - and even at that point, I would have the more experienced player take the Allies.

[@pasbaf]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 good to know, l've just purchased the game and l'm trying to calibrate it to be the most balanced, do you also think researches should be implemented?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@pasbaf I think technology should be left out of the game. There is a video in this series that addresses that optional rule. There’s a video for each optional rule actually.

[@pasbaf]

@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks just finished whatching it and can see why it should be left out! I'm Definatly going to try these strategies in my next game

[@erikhaynes5506]

Great video. But what's the criteria to have a battle seen as 100% winnable?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

when the battle calculator says 100% - I might be missing some context around your question though. At what point in the video did you feel like asking this? Might help me understand where you're coming from.

[@erikhaynes5506]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Nevermind, I was taking you too literally when you say 100% chance of winning in Pearl Harbor. If you played out that battle a million(?) times the US might actually pull out a victory one of those times is all I'm saying.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@erikhaynes5506 ah gotcha, ya...100% only pops up if the battle is 95.95% or greater - the calc will just round up

[@123karpov]

Thanks for this excellent video.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Much appreciated. USSR should be out this weekend.

[@123karpov]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Thanks! I've never won a single game as the Axis so wish me luck as I'm playing them tonight and using your strategic plan to at least get me off to a good start:)

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@123karpov okay, best of luck my dude. would be interested in how it turns out and how you guys calibrated the optional rules. you can email me at [e-mail] if you like. otherwise, good hunting

[@PMMagro]

I always start with attacking Sea Zone 56. 2 fighters vs 1 DD is good and a free transport kill to. Pearl Harbour in SZ 53 can be reinforced by planes right? SZ 50 around Philipines is easy with a BB + anything. Me I like to buy a factory turn 2 in China/Indochina. It frees up transports and makes life sour for the Chinese/Russians or China/UK.

[@vh8542]

People leave the Pacific as the allies?!? *Insert Pikachu face*

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Yes, but I don't know if this changes in the '42 setup. But at the time of this comment, I haven't released my USA video and I have slightly different strategy to present for 41...

[@vh8542]

​@@thegoodcaptain1217 I don't think I've ever done that in an A&A game. Maybe once just to do it. I've basically only played one person though and we played Global a lot, but he was a good player.

[@dirkdiggler9482]

The industrial complex in the East Indies might theoretically work. I've tried it myself, unsuccessfully. The problem is that if the British put an industrial complex in India and move everything else there that they can (and Russia also sends units that way) they can effectively shut out the Japanese for quite a while, making the Japanese investment in that complex potentially an expensive waste of both money and tempo. But I'm going to think about trying that idea again now that I've watched this video. Thanks.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

yes, this is not uncommon but not critical. In this case, the Japanese player simply shucks into Burma. Also, as regards the Russian/British working together. Multinational forces are fine on defense and not much else. India can fast become a morass of allied troops and equipment going nowhere. Also, the lethality of the East Indies factory is not solely as a hammer against India. It is a 4 unit production center first and foremost. You get the most bang for your buck here when building an IC than with any other territory in the Japanese sphere. Additionally, the East Indies has the potential reach to seven allied territories which is just insane and can single shuck into either India or Burma every single turn. It creates a plethora of options for the Japanese player.

[@dirkdiggler9482]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Yes, that’s all true. Additionally, the Japanese can build aircraft on their complex that can reach India and land in neighboring Burma if Japan owns it, which gives further support to any nearby land units that are within striking distance. And if the British have put an industrial complex in India and the Japanese take it, that is a major turning point in the game for the axis powers, or at least potentially.

[@hoodrekt5887]

I disagree with a pretty major part of this video. India is relatively easy to take J2 and I advise that instead of sending that infantry from Thailand into kwangtung that you send it into Burma. I also send the cruiser to bombard kwangtung and leave the battle ship to take out the ships surrounding the Phillipeans. This makes it very easy (with fighter support) to take India J2 and build a complex on it J3. If you build a complex in the East Indies and Manchuria as well you are capable of pumping out 18 Japanese units a turn on J4. In my opinion that is too many, that is 54 IPC a turn and that’s if you only buy infantry. Japans goal is too push farther not defend, Japan needs to pump out power units such as tanks and artillery which are more expensive. If your Japan is making 60 than go ahead but I find it quite difficult to make 60-65 a turn as Japan.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I actually don’t build the Manchuria factory anymore. It’s not necessary. This might be the only adjustment in the series relative to how I play now.

[@hoodrekt5887]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 very interesting. You don’t have to, I know I’ve been sending you a lot of comments haha, but could you explain a little bit why you choose to keep the East Indies and India complex and not the Manchuria one?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@hoodrekt5887 four units can be produced out of there and spamming towards the Middle East is sort-of-a must to counter the USA green wave. But to take it to another level here, if you're really interested, there's no better conversation or communication of functional strategies than playing a game(s). If you would ever like to play a friendly game by TripleA, I will oblige. You can pick your preferred side. =) You have the benefit of knowing what I'm likely to do - and then of course you would hopefully get (hopefully) full answers to any/all questions. I'm not saying to stop posting questions. Just letting you know that in my experience, the most satisfying answer to these questions is to play the person who is putting them forward. I'll always try to answer to the best of my ability otherwise.

[@hoodrekt5887]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 I have never tried triple a but maybe I’ll try to get that set up in the next week or so

[@brentjenkins579]

​@@thegoodcaptain1217 what do you spend those funds on J2 then instead? Also, if NOs are on do you go for Phillipines J1 or wait for J2 still? Trying to decide what to send to Phillipines J1.

[@robertsnyder1890]

per cent, per cent? go for it. this is a WAR game.

[@superilikeeggsyo]

No factory opener? It's perfectly defensible by just landing the FTRs from the China attacks in FIC. I guess having the extra mobility via the transports is good too but a J1 Factory in FIC gets you production closer to the front lines, and is more flexible than a hypothetical DEI factory J2, as you can choose whether to Tank spam or just load up transports bound for Africa based on how the game's going. A J1 Factory also prevents the need for surface fleet in SZ62 during NCM, which lets you NCM the Carriers to SZ60, which is slightly closer to India/Africa/Australia/etc. and gives your FTRs slightly better reach on J2 (specifically, they can hit SZ38 if the UK sent the Australia DD to kill the defenseless TT). I also prefer taking Philippines J1 by sparing the BB in SZ 53 (sinking the Transport in SZ56 is definitely top-priority though). I see no value in wasting units killing a BB that's just going to pick up and go on a 3+ turn trip to the Atlantic (where Germany/Italy won't be building any navy anyway). Instead, just take those FTRs + the TTs you have going to Burma to SZ50 and free up the BB to get a bombardment shot off in China (which boosts your odds slightly in Fukien enough that you can probably swing that FTR to Yunnan instead). This is with NOs off, even, because: A: I'd rather take 2 IPC away from the Americans than the British. B: I'd rather NCM the SZ61 Carrier + the 2 FTRs from the hypothetical SZ50 attack into SZ49, as that tile gives you a number of options J2 (India, Australia or China, based on what the Allies do) That might just be personal preference though. Another reason to spare the BB is for the potential, however small, that you trick your opponent into trying to punish your "mistake" by committing to a Pacific buildup with USA, which basically seals the deal for the Axis as you mention at the end of the video. I agree on literally everything else in the video though, including the general Japan game plan. One extremely important thing I think you may have forgot to mention though, is that in the mid-late game Japan really needs to send its airforce into Europe to help keep Germany and Italy alive. The extra 4-5 FTRs can often be the deciding factor in whether Germany/Italy hold out long enough for Japan to bring the Allies to their knees.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

The Aussie DD cannot reach SZ38. No IJN transports are threatened at the end of this J1. I feel that is pretty crucial. I will edit this comment with more later. I just wanted to get that out.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

This series, in contrast to my Classic series, is about 85% 'things I've seen other people do'. I tried a number of strategies that failed, finally conceded, and just began copying the strategies of the best players I'd seen. With that out of the way, I think I've seen that purchase once by a newer player and he placed it in Manchuria. That isn't to drag your comment but a reason why I didn't include it in my opener. But I did have to read your comment twice to realize you really meant FIC. The value of that territory is a "2" so you're only producing 2 units. DEI is a "4" and the transports are already in position. I might concede the point if I felt that Japan needed to get going even more quickly than it already can but I don't feel that an IC in that position is most ideal given the circumstances. I have certainly placed IC in Burma if/when the Allies made it obvious they would try to hold India though. At all rates, it may be a moot point or hairsplitting. Japan already has an overpowered opener as we agree so as you point out, if there is ever a time and place in axis and allies for 'personal preference' this would be it, haha. Your point about the BB left a bigger impression on me. I began playing this game with near identical strategies I had applied in Classic. One of those is to never attack the Hawaiian fleet. After becoming comfortable with the opener in this video, and after thinking more about it now that you point this out, I would still attack the BB. Germany can build up quite a "Dark Sky" and the more the US has to spend on surface units in the Atlantic, the better for the Axis. I'll stick with taking that two hit BB off them but thanks for pointing this out. I really like the "bait the US to building units in the Pacific". You've got me thinking there... Finally, as to your A and B option. I feel completely opposite of you on that. Why would you want to remove those two IPC from USA so badly? The UK is more of a menace with troops all over at start and more of their IPC are accessible via the Indian Ocean. You can actually make them a smaller power than Russia fairly quickly. Sell me on it if you have the time. Why do you feel that way? As to option B well that might be back to the preference bit. I prefer to have offshores deal with Australia and no aircraft (maybe one). India is on the chopping block with this strat and China is never more than a speed bump in any game. But again, I agree with you, Japan is so OP anyway... *shrug*

[@superilikeeggsyo]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 That's my bad about SZ38. I think I got the map layout of this mixed up with 42SE or something. Anyway, on to the main point(s): I still think IC FIC Vs. IC DEI is a toss up. If you're not building a factory *on* J1 though, DEI is most likely preferable, since by J2 you'll be able to confirm for certain that the Allies aren't going to be bothering with any KJF ideas, so your Transport shuck will be secure. However, having builds ready in mainland Asia within striking distance of India basically immediately is why I like the factory there. I'm by no means a high-level player of this map (although I have played a large number of F2F games on it). As for taking the IPCs from USA on round 1, it's just so you don't have to make any transports go out of their way to capture it. Instead, taking Philippines J1, you can just immediately start throwing your fleet at whatever target is more reasonable on J2 between Australia/India. I guess phrasing it in terms of the IPC wasn't the clearest way of explaining it (although, a 2 IPC difference is the difference between a USA INF and a USA Tank for a TT, or between a Sub and a DD, both of these are fairly important differences in terms of the Europe half of the board). To conclude for now, I wasn't necessarily arguing against anything you said in this video. Everything covered here is basically rock-solid, aside from again stressing the importance of getting the Japanese Air Force into Europe by J4-J5 so it's in time to save Germany/Italy from dying to the Allies (assuming they're playing KGF well and the dice are on their side).

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@superilikeeggsyo ah, okay very clear. I didn’t see too much Japanese fighters needing to head over to Europe in my games so didn’t mention it. I totally understand the concern though. Anyway, delighted to have something like a disagreement with you for a change my dude. Hah!

[@superilikeeggsyo]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Yeah lol. It's probably just because Japan has such a free reign of things that there's more variety on what you can get away with at the start of the game. Thus actual opportunities to disagree.

[@CaptainVasiliArkhipov]

Solid planning it appears Good Captain. better to wipe out 3 small Chinese armies and let their fighter live another round, much like the Philippines. it'll still be there turn 2. I like the way you protected the 2 transports by attacking the Indian ocean. putting the extra hurt on the USA fleet could be interpreted as a 3rd strike at pearl, we did have aircraft carriers not so far away, it could have gone downhill for the japanese but...this wasn't Midway. The limited factory production certainly make your factory's a lot more relevant than simply waiting for the loaded transports. My buddy always tried taking my Manchuria factory, I generally got it back but I became hesitant to buy it for a long time.

[@scoteography]

you mention that you wouldn't put your fleet in the Caroline Islands SZ, wouldn't Japan relish the chance to kill the American airforce in that position? 3, 1, 96% are great odds, probably lose one full carrier for 4 of their planes, slowing down their fleet in either ocean.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

well, as mentioned at 15:35, this is only truly viable if there are no Japanese transports in SZ 62 (or some other naval assets are there to protect said transports) because the USA bomber on the West Coast can reach them. If that condition is met, I still feel like you would have to be playing a fairly new, unreasonable or daring player to expect the USA to make that attack. If the USA attacked with 3 fighters and 1 bomber against a fleet of 2 carriers and only 3 fighters - that's still only a 12-18% chance of success for USA to come out on top) Finally, you could flip the script on your initial statement and say, "wouldn't the American's relish the chance to kill the Japanese airforce in that position?". They might... Anyway, I would never say "never" to it, just need a longer range strategy or purpose for me personally. But if you've got your heart set on it, you should give it a go. The only way any of us learn anything new is by trying new/weird/different tactics. Thanks for the question my dude, these are my favorite by far.

[@CasterMedicus]

Not sure if u r interested in more viewers, but if so, youtube thinks your game is warhammer 40k. Maybe add some better keywords.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Axis and Allies. Axis and allies Japan. Axis and allies Anniversary. Axis and allies anniversary Japan strategy. Axis and allies Japan strategy. Either KZbin thinks you might also be interested in this or let me know how to make better keywords.

[@CasterMedicus]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 U can add up to 3 keywords in the description with #keyword. Make sure they are one word. U also can chose a game for each video, at least for computer games. But even the wrong version of aa might be better than the wrong game. (Dont think youtube is telling me this video is w40k because I watch these. I do not watch w40k at all)

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@CasterMedicus when videos are uploaded on KZbin, it asks for keywords as part of the submission process. I have not seen or heard of hashtags in the description box being a part of the process. I don’t know what you mean by choosing a game for each video.

[@CasterMedicus]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 When u add #keyword then it will appear blue and viewers can click on it to see videos from the same topic. That is one way for youtube to recognize topics. When u upload a gaming video you can scroll down, near the tags, and add what game it is.

[@christophneuschaeffer7489]

Good video and the perfect explanation why OOB rules terribly fail at game balance and historical realities. The Japanese pincer movement against Moscow is a very popular strategy, but turns every A&A game into fiction. It never could even possibly have happened!!! Here is how I fixed it and turned a solid into a perfect game, that even has something to do with history: 1. Every victory city has an industrial complex. No further ICs can be built. Period. It's just ridiculous to think that Japan produces tanks and artillery in a place that is not remotely industrialized (Sumatra). The production limits of ICs are not counted in units but in IPC value: it is four times the IPC value of the territory. Little fun fact: The 1941 edition of A&A (the beginners edition) starts with British ICs in England, India and Australia, even though the UK starts with an income of a mere 12 IPC. I never grasped why UK doesn't start with these ICs in a game that comes with more than tripple the income for the UK. India and Australia can't be defended with OOB rules. 2. Soviet-Japanese Non-aggression treaty is in place at the start of the game. They can attack each other only once Berlin or Moscow have fallen or Japan receives more than 37 IPC income, which gives the Allies a strong incentive to really fight in the Pacific. But they need ICs to get their units there. With OOB rules it would be suicidal to place a factory in India or Australia. 3. China needs to be strengthened seriously: A good way to do that is adding 3 infantry units in every Chinese territory that is attacked for the first time. During World War Two Japan lost more men in China than in the Pacific fighting the US. 4. I added some units such as tactical bombers and mechanized infantry from A&A 1940 Global and added some defensive elements such as bunkers and coastal guns. The Anniversary Edition has the potential to be a magnificent game, but not with OOB rules and setup. After many years of playing and experimenting I have a line-up that is both historical and gives both sides an even chance of winning. OOB rules clearly favor the Axis, especially when playing with National Objectives. If you don't have the time to play the 1940 Global Edition or if you don't like the complexity of it, you need to fix the Anniversary Edition.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

This is a very interesting comment. Much appreciated. I'm not a huge fan of house rules so I don't feel inclined to say much specifically regarding those additions (although I have to say I find the victory cities IC idea REALLY interesting). I agree with your underlying argument that the game is imbalanced in favor of the Axis. I don't feel as strongly about India not being able to be held against the Japanese but I do understand the underlying issues around that comment. I will comment on balance in the 12th video in this series. Until then, I'll hold off. Hope to see you there.

[@christophneuschaeffer7489]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Don't worry, I will stick around and have just subscribed to your channel. I really like your videos and I completely understand people that stay with the OOB rules and setup. Especially if you play tournament games, you need a common denominator. Edit: The idea to place an IC at every victory city wasn't my idea, to be honest. Someone suggested it on Larry Harris Game Design website, which for whatever reason has been shut down recently. Whether this is permanent or not, idk. The basic idea is simple and your strategies confirm it: People rather tend to neglect victory cities and try to win the game by going straight against the capitals and the total surrender of their opponents. By giving every victory city an IC, they are way more important goals and finally worth fighting for. Once I add a new rule to the game, I soon find out whether it works or not and I don't hesitate to skip bad ideas. But if I would only add one house rule to the Anniversary Edition, this would be the one. It really works well, especially if you play with national objectives.