HOI3 TFH as Japan: USA joining Allies as early as 1938

[j_k_k]

Still working out the best way to balance the needs, but even making mistakes I can pretty much own NatChi within a year of invasion. Problem: how to keep the USA out of the Allies? If their Allied lean is based on how much China one takes, there might not be much I can do, but I really would rather keep them out of the war until 1942 rather than have them gang up in 1939 over Poland. I tried a long-term spy project of Support our Party, and got the America First people up to about 30%, but still they joined the Allies. Only other thing I can think of is align to Axis as quickly as possible from the start, then join Axis, then immediately begin influencing the USA. Ideas?

 

[jeffery clark]

Are you playing TFH vanilla? If so that is strange, especially if Japan hasn't joined the Axis since Germany's threat level is much lower. How can America join the Allies with their neutrality so high and Axis threat so low? USA usually doesn't get really pissed until Japan nabs French Indochina and then they embargo. I wouldn't think an early China surrender would have such a great impact unless perhaps Japan totally annexes China. Japan on AI often defeats China in about a year after Marco Polo bridge incident and US never joins Allies. Are you building up your forces much larger than historically?

 

[j_k_k]

Yes, I'm playing vanilla. I joined the Axis at the first opportunity, so maybe that's the trigger. There was no early China surrender, in fact no China surrender at all; I bypassed the less worthwhile VP locations so as to avoid having to give them back some of their best cities. Am I building larger forces than historically? I guess so, in a sense, refitting the whole army into three full armies, each four corps of 2 Inf/1 Art/1 AA, upgrading many garrisons including using some to produce a mountain corps, and getting a start on coastal defense divisions starting with the four main islands and then working outward.

I'm sure there's something I'm doing to trigger it, and in fairness, I probably deserve it because maybe the USA losing its neutrality early is a very reasonable response to what I'm doing (and a check and balance on overly aggressive expansion, thus a good game mechanic). If I can figure out what's tripping their trigger, or how to reduce that, I'll do so.

 

[marxianTJ]

If you're playing the vanilla game.... sometimes wacky stuff just happens. Also note, that if you declare war while in a faction it generates double the threat that a DoW does normally.

 

[j_k_k]

That could explain it. Might make the most sense to stay out of the Axis until I've done all the war-declaring I plan to early on (NatChi, Xibei, Guangxi, Yunnan, ComChi, Shanxi of course, and Tibet just to make sure I don't somehow mess up and find myself at peace).

 

[Kovax]

Faction membership makes a significant difference in the effect of Threat. Joining the Axis early is probably driving the US' neutrality down. I'd suggest using spies starting in January of '36 to raise your party's organization in the US, but don't join the Axis until Germany's Threat is high enough for your own to be less of an issue. If you're making any additional early conquests, you might want to reconsider that as well, and let or make THEM declare war on YOU.

Also, if you're building all those extra divisions as Regulars, rather than Reserves, it might have a serious impact on your Threat. Normally, if Japan builds a lot of ships and planes, it boosts their Threat, but you're focusing on infantry, which should theoretically provide LESS Threat, unless you're building them as Regulars.

One more detail: you probably don't need AA in every division, maybe in one or two divisions per Corps at most. AA has fairly low Soft Attack, and the division slot could be much more effectively used by another INF brigade against MOST targets (which are typically Soft). Having one or two AA units in a Corps will likely be helpful against the US, but you probably don't need ANY versus Nat. China, because your own Interceptors will be a lot more effective at disrupting the operations of Chinese aircraft than a few weak AA guns.

 

[j_k_k]

Okay, so I was doing the right thing by doing Support Our Party in the US from the beginning (that got me to pretty good membership in America First, with some Silver Legion and Bund support). Then I probably hosed myself by accepting Axis membership before Germany was well built up. Might be a good time to wait to join the Axis until Italy does, so I can have Pact of Steel.

All the ground units I built, I built as reserves, so at least that wasn't the culprit. I didn't build much air or naval early, on the logic that once I got the army to a solid standardized organization, land unit builds would take a back seat to air and naval builds. In fact, I don't think I'd finished any new naval units by the time the USA joined the Allies, except for four landing craft and ongoing serial convoy/escort builds. The air units for a carrier hadn't even finished. I think 3 CLs had.

The logic on AA as the fourth unit in a division was not so much to fight off aircraft as deciding one more support brigade that would make the division a little tougher and more diverse. A third infantry would cost more IC and require more supply (having more bang for that buck, yes, but at a cost). I wanted to be able to cover larger areas of land while progressing across China and thus wanted more, smaller but still tough divisions. The other option was AT, which seemed less likely to come into play for its specialty and more costly to operate (though slightly). If there were non-motorized engineers, I might have chosen those, but there are not in vanilla. And while my interceptors can sometimes provide fighter cover in China, just as often they are out of range. Sometimes even the bombers are. If there were a more useful choice I'd take it, but I haven't yet found a more diverse, tough Japanese division for the time in which I need to build an enormous amount of support brigades if I am to be ready for war. I'm definitely open to new ideas; I don't think the 1 Art is disposable, but maybe there's a very smart substitute for the AA that I have not considered. If I could build marines that early, I might just use those and later plan to replace them, forming them into a bunch of their own divisions, but I can't. I could build mountain brigades that early, but those really have their day in China and not so much later on. Cavalry, I guess, split away later as armies of occupation.

As Japan, what has struck me most is the need to be a cheap SOB. I care about every point of supply I can save. I care about every leader in the proper place without waste. I care about .05 IC. I want to waste nothing, because they don't have all that much and there's a ton to do. I want every chunk of resources and every IC. I am not going to disband even the crummy antique subs--any naval unit that can fight even by throwing rocks can have a patrol job later on, spotting incoming danger just as the real-life picket boats were to do. I do not believe I can be inefficient and succeed. So if anything I am doing is very inefficient, and the AA choice might be the most questionable in that regard, I'm definitely going to pay attention.

Where I probably diverge most from conventional thought is on garrisons. I've never seen a garrison division give me a tough fight and I am not putting faith in them for anything but static VP defense. For that, a 'division' of 1 Gar/1 MP is sufficient. For defense of relatively secure areas, I build the same 3 Mil/1 AA I did playing Germany many times, two per port. If it's an insecure area, I reason, it needs defending by real combat divisions with real leaders. So Okinawa will get by with my militia divisions, but I'll probably pile a whole infantry corps in Truk, because I want to keep it. Same for Midway and Guam and Wake, which I have seen that the USA keeps wanting back (can't blame them).

 

[j_k_k]

Maybe I should be raising Soviet threat? or British? Those worked as Germany. I begrudge every LS, of course, but sometimes you just have to fork over. As Japan, whatever sacrifice must be made to keep the USA out of getting wartime benefits starting in 1939 is a necessary expense because over two extra years for them to build on the scale of which they are capable would be real bad.

 

[Kovax]

Not sure about Japan, but with GER, I can usually spare half a point of Leadership for Espionage, and use spies to raise the Threat of the UK while undermining the National Unity of France, and boosting party support in the USA and striking a lot of small trade deals. By the time war breaks out in '39 (I sometimes invade a country other than Poland, so the UK declares war on ME, increasing their Threat even further), France is a wreck internally, while the US is drifting slowly Axis even without Influence. If I keep Japan out of the Axis, I can usually hold the US neutral for several years, even after Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. Actually getting the US to vote in an authoritarian government takes a lot of dedication and Leadership to replace the high rate of losses, because you can't afford to divert your spies to counter-espionage in order to maintain spy superiority.

Playing Japan, as long as you don't do the attack the US, you should in theory be able to keep them fat, dumb, and happy by selling them cheap supplies right from the start and buying some of their resources to feed your own economy. The small amount of political drift and party popularity due to the improved Relations from the trade deals should go a long way toward keeping them neutral.

 

[j_k_k]

That makes excellent sense, Kovax. I've mostly played GER myself, but Japan's LS is very short. I can afford just enough espionage to keep domestic spies raising national unity and spending about 2/3 of the time supporting our party, now and then switching to counterintelligence to hose out the accumulated spies. The question I'm facing, which your information seems to answer, is whether I need to pry 2 LS away from research in order to also influence the USA. Since one can't influence them at all during neutrality, if I can solve the problem by continuing to endure the neutrality penalties, that's far cheaper in LS than joining the Axis and then devoting 2 LS to what might be a futile effort to keep the USA away from the Allies.

Plus, if I remain neutral, they might not embargo me so early. As you say, those trades are very nice to have in addition to their subtle influence on USA alignment. I don't think it's necessary to go so far as to seek to get them to vote in an authoritarian government; eventually, of course, I do plan to go to war with them. I plan to capture everything in the Pacific I can hold, occupy as much of China as makes sense (that would be most of it), and hold all of southeast Asia from the eastern shores of the Indian Ocean to Australasia to Pearl and Polynesia. Depending on how soon I digest all that, and how soon I have four strong CV groups, we'll see what comes along in the remaining time. It's a lot of space to watch and patrol and ship supplies around.

Seems like I have, with your assistance, found the key mistake I have made. Much appreciated (which is not to say I wouldn't welcome further insights).

 

[10000 Tanks]

In TFH Vanilla, every declaration of war raises your threat and therefore reduces the neutrality of the USA. I have not found a way to invade all of the Chinese warlord states without the USA joining the allies. You can maybe take out the communists in addition to Shanxi and NatChina but that's it.

In 1939 you can raise threat on UK, Canada and Australia, which can keep the USA out of the allies sometimes. But before nations close to the US join the allies, the UK threat is "too far away" from the US. Unfortunately, you are considered closer than UK and Soviets to the US in regards of threat.

 

[j_k_k]

I wonder if it might help to raise France's threat. St. Pierre & Miquelon are rather close to the USA, and France is already in the Allies at start; Canada isn't. Then again, SP&M isn't that much closer than Newfoundland and it's not closer than the Bahamas, and if raising British threat doesn't already help, not sure what else would.

The argument against raising USSR threat, I should think, would be that the Comintern is a different faction and joining the Allies would still be a defensive move relative to raised Comintern threat.

 

[Kovax]

Unfortunately, the "distance" between countries is based on "different continents", rather than an actual straight line measurement. The US is programmed to respond to Japan's Threat more than from other sources (for game purposes, Asia is "closer" than Europe to the US). It MIGHT be possible to raise the Threat of France to take advantage of French colonies in the Caribbean, but all that's going to do is lower US neutrality by a trivial amount and drive them into the Allies marginally sooner. In the case of the US, ANY threat is a bad thing for the Axis. Political drift due to Threat has been gutted since around FtM (possibly due to abuse in multi-player), and only has about 1-2% of the effect it once had.

The reduction of Consumer Goods Demand for GER or ITA due to UK threat is significant (same continent, opposing ideology), and the US is distant enough for the impact of that Threat to be a minor concern, and in addition, it's coming from a similar ideology and has far less effect. GER can boost the UK's threat through the ceiling and the US will barely notice. Japan's Threat on the US has a much greater impact than that of GER or the UK, due to the US' programmed sensitivity to Japan and their opposed ideologies.

 

[j_k_k]

Hmmm. It sounds like there's consensus that if Japan doesn't want the USA in the Allies, it had better exercise significant restraint in China. If it were to do that, it might get to build for four more years before starting the US on a wartime buildup. If Japan's Threat is the main influencer, and the US is preprogrammed to react strongly to that (not illogical as a game mechanic), and Threat can never be decreased, the only actions that can help are those actions not taken that thus did not raise Japan's Threat. I assume that the buildup will already do that to a large degree.

So there's nothing for it but to forego most of the Chinese warlord states. If only they'd be so kind as to reunite, so one DOW could get 'em all. But in vanilla TFH, at least, that's broken. I've never seen it. Looking at the list of starting country stats, if you had to pick one to grab and milk, Guangxi would be the only choice. 23 IC, 5 LS, VP cities near frontier. (Although, when they decide they can live without Guangdong, surely some of that goes to NatChi.) Shanxi is 13/2.4, but it's automatic with NatChi. Xibei, 6/0.7. Yunnan, 6/0.9. Sinkiang, 6/0.68. ComChi, 5/0.6. Am I missing anything of worth? Yeah, there are also resources, but I think Guangxi's remnant has the edge there too.

Is there any point at all, then, in Japan Supporting Our Party in the US? Assuming one plans to keep one's punking on warlord fiefdoms to a manageable level early on?

 

[Kovax]

If you go all out on party support, no matter the Leadership cost, it's probably possible to get the US to vote fascist in 1940, but more likely for it to occur in 1944. Germany can do it by 1940, barely, if everything thing goes just right. I've done it with Italy, since Fascism isn't quite as difficult as National Socialism. Not sure if it's possible for Japan, at least without sacrificing a huge chunk of your Research and resigning yourself to being behind militarily. Germany has the Leadership to at least hold the US out of the Allies for several more years without a change of ruling party, by using decent Relations and direct Influence while NOT admitting Japan to the Axis, but unless you play a totally pacifist Germany with no arms buildup, eventually the UK will drag them into diplomatic range anyway. Problem is, you can't affect what AI Germany does in a single-player game.

The down side of party support is, if you fail to get them to vote your party in during the 1940 election, and then the US gets into the war in 1941-43, there's still a chance that the fascists will win in 1944, giving the US the ability to pass all of those aggressive laws to use against you. In essence, you can create an even bigger monster than they already are, and they'll be in the Allies. The alternative means having to hold the US out of the Allies until '44 with direct Influence, Relations from Trade deals, or anything else you can pull off to gain an extra sliver of traction, while the UK does its best to draw them in. That's a Leadership-intensive tug-of-war that you probably can't afford to fight, and the consequences of losing means that you spent all that Leadership for nothing.

To some extent, the Axis is going to do what it does, and you have no control over Italy and Germany carving up Yugoslavia, which reduces the US' neutrality by a sizable amount (by event). You can ignore the Pearl Harbor thing, so you can at least buy some time for the Axis. Whether or not that will last until the 1944 elections is debatable. Party support, therefore, is a risk, and an "all or nothing" proposition. Go all out, or don't even try.

 

[j_k_k]

Yeah, that's the thing: Japan has no influence over what Germany and Italy do. (Germany probably wishes it could influence what Japan does, so I guess that's a good mechanic for simulating the divergent self-interest of allies.) I hadn't even considered the possibility of the US turning into an Allied fascist monstrosity; they could be ridiculous.

I can use the LS for other things anyway. It takes about .24 to keep a net spy pool gain while maxing domestic counter-intel and pushing the US toward fascism. Maybe I should abandon foreign espionage altogether as a waste, or start spying on the British to see if I can snag some good techs. It's not like they and we will ever be pals, though I would like to trade with them as long as possible. Maybe I should spy on the Germans for techs, since they are kind of stuck with me.

It seems clear enough to me that if I stay out of the Axis, and limit my DLWs to NatChi/Shanxi and Guangxi, I can conquer as much productive/research ability as possible while letting the US continue to nap. Of course, none of this happens in a vacuum. Germany will surely DLW on the customary countries, though not until 1939 and after, and that isn't going to help keep the US quiet.

 

[Kovax]

The UK makes a great early spy target: lots of up-to-date techs and all of the espionage penalties associated with an open country. France is easier, but has less to take. Germany is great for techs, but also has excellent spy defenses if you're not allied to them. Japan can easily afford to place 10 spies in the UK in 1936, but by 1939 they start to pass harsher laws due to German and Italian threat, and become a less attractive target. Good idea, but probably a bit late for your game.

Remember that only the highest threat to a county counts, so if Germany has more threat than you on the US, you might be able to get away with picking off another Chinese warlord.

 

[j_k_k]

Yeah, I'm thinking of restarting now that I realize how I authored my own eventual crushing. The ten spies I had at work promoting the America First agenda can do me far more good swiping random techs from the British. We're behind them in many ways, and we won't even begin to catch up before 1939, so anything we can steal in those first three years will be a nice bonus worth the long-term LS cost.

I wonder about what % our warlord-DLWs raise our threat with the USA, per declaration. I'll look next time when I trigger Marco Polo, although I'm not sure that's a good guide, because I'm not sure if the raise of threat is per DLW or per country it involves (Shanxi comes in automatically, but maybe that counts for two on my part). I'm also not sure if the size of the country matters. If it does, then hitting Guangxi would move the needle less, but more than say Yunnan or Xibei. My normal inclination would be to take ComChi as the next choice, because while it doesn't have a huge pool of IC/LS/resources to gain, it's kind of out there where it could cause trouble if somehow I ended up at war with it on any terms but my own, and it's small enough that it's easy to take down. A good push from north, then hit from the south, and down it goes.

As for the lost benefits of abandoning neutrality and joining the Pact of Steel, nothing for it. What they cost is so much worse than their payoff that I'll just have to put them off a long time. I wonder if Japan can get any more country-specific effects like Chihli Gulf and Taiwan Strait?

 

[10000 Tanks]

The size does not matter. As said, everything more than one additional declaration gets you in risky waters. I would just keep the war with NatChina until you join Germany fighting the allies in Sept 1939.

 

[marxianTJ]

Every declaration of war generates the same amount of threat regardless of the country's size. You usually only get 1-2 pre-war DoWs before you massively throw the game off the rails.