• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I prefer 5 at least.  6 is even better cause now you have 4 at Japan and 2 shuffling around the Indian Ocean.

    R1: IC/2 TRN
    R2: Infantry/TRN (1)
    R3: Infantry/TRN (1)
    R4: Infantry/TRN (1)

    *note, infantry can be upgraded to artillery or armor if money allows.


  • OK, here is a quick numeric review of the options…

    On J1, all are pretty much equal… at most 2 units to Asia (assuming SZ59 was attacked).

    Japan 2:
    With 1 IC, 2 TRN purchased on J1, you can get an additional 9 divisions to Asia on J2 (1 existing TRN, 2 purchased, 3 units to be built at the new IC)
    To do this, you will strip Japan, Oki, and Wake.  You also buy 1 more TRN in J2

    With 4 TRN on J1, you can get an additional 10 units to Asia on J2… in theory since you have 5 TRN now.  But where to get the units?
    Japan has 4 units left after J1.
    Oki and Wake have 1 each.
    Phillipines has 2.
    Nothing else in range for immediate landing.
    So only 4 TRN full, one is sent sailing away for no gain this round.
    Only EIGHT units to Asia (one less than with the IC).
    You can buy AT MOST 8 units due to build limits

    Japan 3:
    With the original IC buy, you added a 4th TRN the previous round, and now you are landing 8 divisions from Japan, 3 more placed at your new IC for 11 total.

    With the 5 TRN buy, you move the 8 divisions you bought for Japan in J2, and you MAY land 2 units from the TRN sent scavenging the previous round (maybe not if it went to Solomons and New Guinea).  10 divisions total.

    Each turn after J1, the IC in Asia gets one addiitional unit to Asia.  And by the end of J4 or 5, the extra TRN is wasted, because there are no units left to scavenge.

    Also, to buy 4 TRN on J1 requires a 2 IPC bid to asia, so less income for Germany is also in the mix.

    And even if you build an IC on J2 or later, you are still down 1-2 units in Asia.  May not sound like much, but in a hard fought game against a skilled opponent, a single INF in the right place at the right time (like an extra INF in the front wall of the Japan attack that you get with the IC), you are able to take territory stornger and faster, and do more damage to your opponent with less loses of your own forces.  And extra INF to Asia by Japan early has a cumulative benefit over several turns.


  • @ncscswitch:

    You just don;t need that many TRNs

    I disagree.

    Additional transports let you pad the Japanese navy against US attack, and let you attack targets like Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and India with the infantry from the southeast Pacific islands.  Additional transports also let you threaten a larger Alaska or West Canada attack.

    I mentioned six transports, but I consider that the minimum; I actually hit seven transports in most games, and have played up to nine transports in a long game.

    “May not sound like much, but in a hard fought game against a skilled opponent, a single INF in the right place at the right time (like an extra INF in the front wall of the Japan attack that you get with the IC), you are able to take territory stornger and faster, and do more damage to your opponent with less loses of your own forces.  And extra INF to Asia by Japan early has a cumulative benefit over several turns.”

    This is exactly why I advocated the use of Japanese infantry/tanks rather than infantry/artillery in that other thread - tanks have the mobility to hit the right place at the right time.  Transports can also be used to give infantry greater effective range.

    (edit) - fixed typo (/edit)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The problem with 4 tran max is you have nothing to leap-frog troops with later.  ICs are great, don’t get me wrong, but an IC on J1 is a luxury, not a necessity.  You’re much better off getting that IC on J3 or J4 when you need rapid deployment to the fronts.


  • Obviously a difference of opinion.

    The key discrpancies…
    1.  The need for extra “padding” of the Japan fleet… only needed if the US comes into the Pacific (which will have Germany doing a Happy Dance anyway).
    2.  Grabbing Australia, etc.  I USED to be an advocate of that.  But if you have extra TRN, then they are better used near Africa not down in the South Pacific.
    3.  It appears that many of you do not fully appreciate the power of ART/INF combos being built early on to be your front line force, backed up with later ARM builds, and perhaps even alter FIGs/BOMs).  Each ART built costs 1 IPC more than INF, but you increase from a 2 attack with 2 INF to a 4 attack with the combo (total of course, not each).  That means that each ART/INF combo is a match for defending INF, instead of just INF that is HALF of defending INF.  Then you add your ARM/FIG/BOM punch…  INF defenders are a lot less impressive when the ATTACKING INF is also  a 2…  INF/ART combos are the same total attack value as an INF/ARM, but it is cheaper.  And in the first 2-3 rounds, you don;t yet need SPEED as Japan… you will just outrun your cannon fodder if you try to go too fast…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Aye aye, I agree.

    But, as I mentioned before, you don’t NEED that IC on round 1.  You can be even more effective being short a unit and having more mobility.  Remember, you can always build it on R2 or R3, if you want.

    Meanwhile, without the IC England’s bomber is drifting in the wind instead of set up for a free strafing run on your southern IC, America pretty much has to face an entire Japanese aggression force if they decide to go Pac Strat instead of something safer like hitting Germany and Japan is just as mobile and just as hard hitting as if they had the IC.  Only now, they can set it up in a more beneficial location. (ie, if the allies hold the north strong, you can put it in the south.  If the allies are annoying in the south, put it in the middle or the north.)

    In this way you force the allies to play on your terms.  Not you on theirs.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I like to give Japan $2 of the bid so I can buy 4trn on J1.  The existing trn gets sent south on J1 to either raid the southern islands for troops or attack Australia/NZ on J2/J3.  I will usually build my 1st IC in FIC but no sooner than J2.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I like that idea too.  Though isn’t there something better you could do with 32 IPC?  Maybe set up an insurance policy against an American Pac Strat with 3 Transports, 1 Submarine?  Gives you a legup.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Jennifer:

    I like that idea too.  Though isn’t there something better you could do with 32 IPC?  Maybe set up an insurance policy against an American Pac Strat with 3 Transports, 1 Submarine?  Gives you a legup.

    I like having the 4 trn because it puts in place the infrastructure to max out the Japan IC.  If the US evacuates the Pacific the sub would be worthless, so I don’t buy any until I see what the US is going to do.


  • Agreed.  No reason to defend against a US threat that is at best 2 turns away, and may not exist at all.

    As for maxing out TRN’s… I tend to do that from J2 forward, but get that extra unit to Asia in J2 and J3 as a result of the IC.  I have played too many knock-down drag outs lately to underestimate the power of an extra unit early being put where it is needed…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    See,I’ve been on the reverse.  I’ve played too many fights over Asia with an Allied navy comming for me, English captures of islands before I can move, India IC, Sink IC and maybe a few russian reinforcements, to willie nillie dump an IC on Asia in R1


  • But you KNOW before J1 if the Allies are coming heavy to Asia.  You PROBABLY know it on R1, and definitely by UK1 (India is the clincher).

    And if the Allies are NOT coming hard on Japan, then a J1 IC/2 TRN purchase is superior to a 4 TRN buy.

    But I will agree…if you have a strong UK India presence and/or an IC in India, skipping the IC on J1 is a good idea.  Though I still would not go 4 TRN.  Probably 3 TRN, 1 ART, 1 INF; still giving me 4 TRN for J2 (and enough land units to fill all of them).  I can then land 5 INF, 2 ART, 1 ARM in J2, along with AF and support shots, anywhere along the coast they are needed to counter the Russians or Brits.  THEN I drop my IC on J2 (unless the US is coming hard after a US1 naval buy, then I am buying land units for the TRNs and navy.  But KJF’s are so rare…)

  • Moderator

    I think there are things the Allies can do, that won’t reveal a KJF (although it is more of a slow Japan down rather then try to take them out) until after U1-R2.

    Russia can still stack Yak, Sin (or Novo), buy 3 inf, 3 arm and attack Wrus and Ukr and I don’t think that gives anything away.

    And UK can buy air/inf, counter Egy or stock up fleet around Afr, or try an Indain Ocean unification, which wouldn’t necessarily mean going after Japan.

    I think the key becomes how well did G1 go, but more importantly how well did J1 go.  Did Pearl go well?  Do they overextend?  Did they make a bad buy or NCM?  Etc.

    At this point the US can look over the board and see if the opportunity is there to go after Japan.

    On the trns/IC topic, due to my games lately, I’m really shifing towards a no IC until Rd 2 or later for Japan.  I’ve played too many games with US going Pac (maybe my last 6 out of 7 games) so I like to wait and see the US commit to either the Atlantic or Pac first.

    Why?

    B/c if US goes Pac then an IC on FIC (or later Ind) is BAD, and I’d perfer a Man IC (or possibly Kwa).

    Also, you’ll need trns for fodder and extra movement of troops to threaten landings in possibly Ala/Wcan or Hi, so buying 3 trns is a pretty safe bet on J1 and still allows 8 units to Asia and gives you an extra “useful” ship in your fleet.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I really have to wonder what the point is of landing troops in Alaska.  You can’t possibly hold the land.


  • It can be a nice distraction to the US Shuck… especially if that shuck is poorly executed :-D

    It is especially effective when you take both Alaska and WCan on the same turn…  US HAS to counter…

  • Moderator

    Depending on how commited Japan is, I think you can threaten the the US pretty good.

    Example  (Assume US goes with an Atlantic Focus).

    As Japan in rds 1-2, buy trns and inf (kind of a normal play).  You can even get away with a rd 1 IC (on Man).
    Set your Japan to Asia Shuck-Schuck via sz 60 to Bury.
    Once the US BB hits the Eus sz, then as Japan you are really safe.

    Say J3 you unload 8 inf to bury (bought 8 and place on Japan).
    Now on J4 you dump 8 inf to Wcan (from Japan) and move the 8 inf from Bury to Sfe.

    With wise purchasing you can keep dumping 6-8 units into Canada and still place 3-5 in Aisa (at this point for defense only) to hold your lines at Sin and Yak.

    Obviously you won’t be making a run at Moscow, but this can be handy if you deem it impossible to get to Moscow and take anyway.

    The problem for the US is, if they didn’t start their inf train from Wus, Japan can squeeze in at Cus or Ecan (or both) and force the US to take them back.

    IMO, you play J1-3 fairly conventionally, judge the status at that time and then decide whether you can make a play or not.

    As long as you are Shucking from Sz 60 to Bury on J2-3, and placing 4-8 units on Japan, I think the opportunity is there to cause some trouble if the US get sloppy early on.

    Edit:

    Switch snuck in a post.  But I agree.


  • :mrgreen:

    Good Things

  • 2007 AAR League

    The reason I won’t buy an IC on J1 is because the situation is too fluid.  Russia normally will have stacked 6inf in Bury plus 2inf & possibly a tank in Sink.  Japan has to attack China, Pearl, and destroy the remnants of the UK IO fleet.  I find it risky to commit to an IC before I know the outcome of those battles, especially China which for me always ends up being a bloodbath.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But you cannot possibly hold Alaska without utilization of your entire Air Force added to a building of an IC and even then, it’s highly doubtful you can resupply it fast enough to seriously distract America.  Meanwhile, Russia’s giggling herself silly as she grabs Asia and pummels Germany.


  • @Jennifer:

    But you cannot possibly hold Alaska without utilization of your entire Air Force added to a building of an IC and even then, it’s highly doubtful you can resupply it fast enough to seriously distract America.  Meanwhile, Russia’s giggling herself silly as she grabs Asia and pummels Germany.

    Holding Alaska/West Canada isn’t the point of hitting Alaska/West Canada at all.  It’s a simple question of logistics.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 31
  • 25
  • 5
  • 41
  • 57
  • 6
  • 13
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts