It seems to be a popular view that Japan is wasting its money if it buys a complex before it has maxed out the first one (i.e. is transporting 8 units/turn to the mainland). However, I am of the opinion that 2 tran 1 IC–this is assuming $1 bid to Japan–is the optimal J1 purchase for getting units to the mainland quickly. There was an old thread (sorry, I couldn’t find the link on my first search and I’m too lazy to look harder) that had some calculations to this effect, but for the short version, consider:
—If you build 3 tran on J1, you can put 8 units in Asia on your second turn. However, with 2 tran 1 IC you can get 9 units there: 6 from your three transports, and three more from your complex. With a 2 IC purchase it’s down to 8 again, one from your transport and 6 from your complexes. (I’m assuming throughout that the UK killed your transport in SZ 59 so that you only have one to start with.) So if you’re trying to get as many units to Asia on J2 as you can, 2 tran 1 IC is the way to go.
—4 tran on J1, using a bid of $2, is also a good way to start fast. However, in this case your capacity outstrips your income; it will be a couple rounds before you can actually get new units fast enough to keep your transports busy. The 2 tran 1 IC buy is better optimized at keeping your production/transport capacity matched up with the number of units you can afford to produce. In particular, a 4 tran J1 purchase enables you to put as many as 10 units into Asia on J2 if you clean out Philippines, East Indies, Okinawa, and Wake, but then you run out of island units and can only make up to 8 new ones in Japan. So you get a lot of inf on J2 but it’s more of an anomaly, where the 2 tran 1 IC buy gives you a smoother and more continuous startup.
—As far as location, I like FIC the best. Kwang is farther from Moscow than either Fic or Man, so if you’re trying to put pressure on the Russians quickly you want either Fic or Man. You can supply plenty of troops to the northern area from Japan itself, so the complex is needed more on the southern end. Plus it enables you to get to Africa, Caucasus, etc better.
—So far I’ve been assuming KGF. In KJF you should certainly be a bit more hesitant about getting factories up quickly. However, I’ve found that a FIC complex, which is always where I build on J1 if I build a factory at all, can be very helpful in KJF. Ideally when defending against an American fleet you want to defend as far out as possible, e.g. with a fleet in the Caroline or even Solomon islands. However, if you’re forced to fall back, FIC is a great fallback point. The key thing about it is that it borders all three of your valuable islands. If you get in trouble you can fall back to SZ 36 and build more ships there to join your retreating fleet. Often this will be enough to prevent the Americans from taking any of those expensive islands right away. If your only factory is in Japan you’re forced to keep your navy farther north to incorporate the new builds, and the Americans have an easier time getting to the southern islands.
US strategy : Alaska IC
-
Hello everybody :-)
I have heard about a US strat with an early US IC in Alaska and a floatting bridge between Alaska and Soviet Far East.
I know KJF is more difficult than KFG, but i want to know if this kind of strat is efficient. -
I have used it. It is helful in both getting infantry over to the Soviet far east quicker and also for a quicker build up of navy if you want to attack/threaten Japan. I still do it in about 75% of games where I am the Allies. It really takes the pressure off of Africa and India as Japan has to focus on her own protection.
-
Strange, I’ve never tried it unless Japan’s navy is sunk or neutralized. It’s never been my target going into a game. I don’t think that the IC would be necessary in Alaska unless you need to buy big expensive ships there. Troops can be built on WUS and marched to WCAN to be shucked to SFE.
I would see it as generally less effective because in order to be able to get troops to those territories, your navy needs to be able to withstand attack from Japan’s navy which at the end of Round 1 probably consists of 2 BB’s, 2 CV’s, 1 DD, 6 fig, 1 bom, 4 transports. And once you do get that kind of a navy together, which takes quite a while unless Japan neglects to build more ships/planes, Japan probably is pretty strong in Buryatia and can kill any invaders.
The upside to shucking to Europe is the relatively little need for capital ships, the greater ability to cooperate with the other Allies, the more valuable territories, most are worth $2-6 as compared to $1-3 in Asia, and the ability to contest Africa.
A better case can be made for Island Hopping because East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines are valuable and make good locations for factories.
-
An Alaska IC, like a Brazil IC, is not a terribly efficient use of resources. You can just move land units up. Concentrate instead on air power to destroy the Jap navy.
Theoretically, shucking from West Canada to Buryatia seems highly effective. Yet for whatever reason I always seem to take the Southern route (ie Borneo, East Indies and eventually take Fico). Still, if you can kill the Jap navy early shucking to Buryatia is biggg.
-
Once you are in a position to utilize the IC in Alaska it is great. An extra 15 IPC’s for the ability to put up two super subs, a carrier for two planes and a destroyer, or a battleship and carrier, with immediate striking ability into Japan, you will see what I mean. If Japan does not count on those types of builds and thinks that only infantry & artillery are being built to shuck over to the mainland you can surely surprise her. If Japan does realize it and starts defending against it the pressure is off the islands/Africa/India. I personally like it as does enemy, when they are playing the Allies.
Try something new, you may be surprised how refreshing it is to mix your games up a bit. That is why I love these boards. I can pick up different ideas and try them in my games.
-
It’s not like an IC in Alaska is totally useless–it’s just not going to be terribly effective against a good Japan player. The only point in buying the Alaska IC is to drop expensive naval units (preferably carriers, with fighters flown in from WUSA to Alaska) in SZs closer to Japan. But to do that, you need to be basing the USA navy up north…that is, far from any territory greater than 1 ipc. In this case, the Japs just need to defend Japan, which is easily done given they have an 8 ipc factory there. Getting into a naval build-up in this region favors Axis, and meanwhile USA isn’t putting any pressure on the money islands.
It’s great to experiment with new stuff but going crazy on USA ICs is not good strategy. I once played a 1-1 against an Allies who bought 5 factories with the USA (China, Sink, Alaska, Brazil, and West Russia) and 2 factories with UK (India and Norway). He actually had the advantage in the early part of the game but all the cash he put into factories rather than gear hurt him down the line–not to mention the advantages the Japs had when they captured all those Asia factories.
Moral of the story is USA starts the game with a 12 ipc factory and a 10 ipc factory. For maximum efficiency, the only factories USA should build are in mainland spots that can be defended (like say Norway) or maybe in Asia if all 3 Allies are pressuring Japan.
-
My observation from several years of playing Revised is that whomever builds an IC in Alaska will ultimately loose it. This has proven true whether the US or Japan has built the IC. I have personally never seen an exception to this in 5 years of playing Revised.
-
I really should try this some time (if I can build it on turn one). Just can’t see it being more effective than going for the IPC islands in the south.
-
I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska. I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50. Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR. Sorry.