• In a game I’m currently playing, Japan owns four (count 'em, four) ICs.
    One that they start with, one in French Indochina, one in East Indies, and one in Australia. Where do you think is the most influential place for the Japs to put their second IC? (Comments are encouraged.)

    😄 :-? 😢 :x :evil:

  • Moderator

    FIC… IF you sucessful in Taking India and it has an IC on it you can pump 6 Tanks into persia a Turn… very devestating to the Russians

  • French Indochina is a good place to put it. Try capturing India’s IC or build one there, too once you get it. I believe having 2 ICs on the mainland is the only way to get good pressure on Russia going. Sometimes you can manage to capture China’s IC too if US tried to stall Japan. Then I pump out 6 tanks a turn and come up from Persia into Caucuses or that other area. It’s a very good way to take pressure off of Germany once you can afford that stage.

  • I favor French Indochina as well. You guys’ posts help to reinforce the notion that Japan is crucial in saving the Nazis from utter ruin. (in most games I could think of)

  • …And not to pry, but to whoever voted “Other” please specify via a comment where you’re talking about. I’m curious…

  • your question assumes that you should buy an IC. just transports are much better than ICs for reasons that have been explained many times before by many others in previous posts.

  • Good call, Duke. Let it be known that the “Other” option shall include an answer of “Don’t build one. Trannies are the way to go.”

  • Interesting. I’d like to know why transports are better than IC’s??? Isn’t it better to have transports AND extra IC’s??? Duke?

  • transports are definitely better than ICs. once again, logic lessons feld….

    transports overall better than ICs does not mean transports overall better than infantry. infantry rules!!! :lol:

  • I don’t think so. Maybe transports are just plain superior in the early stages of the game, but later on, with a movement of only two spaces, they will not provide enough reach to effectively place Japanese troops around the map. So, the IC angle is to provide local unit production in areas that are farther from Japan than their navy can reach. (Like French Indo, E. Indies, or Australia) 😉

  • Infantry rules but the most important unit is transports.

  • Hi guys.

    There is an analysis of transports v. complexes that you might like in one of the webzines I help edit. The analysis talks about basic production and then it analyzes specific cases.

    Here’s a link to the group:

    The article is Policy Paper #07 in the files section.

    The conclusion from that paper is start with transports and only build an IC when you are flush with cash.


  • @Guerrilla:

    FIC… IF you sucessful in Taking India and it has an IC on it you can pump 6 Tanks into persia a Turn… very devestating to the Russians

    How do you get 6 just from india?

  • 😮

  • He’s not talking about building 6 tanks in India itself. GG is answering the poll with “French Indochina”, and then when (if) Japan takes India, and Britain has built an IC there, Japan effectively has six units worth of production within range of Caucasus. So actually, a lot of factors have to come into play first, but it works out.

  • I agree with AgentOrange. TPs are more versatile, it seems.

  • But with an 8 unit build limit, Japan is going to HAVE to build an IC at some point, probably sooner rather than later, just to be able to field all of their units.  Once you have 4 TRN’s adjacent to Japan, you are at max capacity… 8 land units fill 4 trannies, and that is all you can build.

    By J3 or J4, that 8 unit limit is going to HURT, so you need AT LEAST one more IC, preferably on the continent, that can eat up 15 or more IPC’s of production and get you 3 more units in Asia.

    Personally, I like the first IC in FIC.  It is the most flexible, allowing you to send land forces to and through India to Persia, then either against Caucuses or into Africa; also allows for forces to be sent to and through China, SInkiang, then to Novo and beyond; and allows for a TRN and land units to be built to send for Africa and/or Australia.

    For a second factory… Manchuria.  Second most flexible.  Allows land units to go to Russian Eastern territories, or to and through China, Sinkiang, Novo; and can be used for naval builds to defend Japan, or to stage additonal units in preparation for a push against the US.

    Third would be Kwang.  Equivalent to the others for China push, but less effective at either Russia East or India runs.

    Last would be East Indies (or Borneo).  Sure, they have 4’s instead of 3’s, but since you have to build trannies to get anything out of there, then your “extra” unit is just another tranny, AND it costs you an extra 8 IPC’s to get only TWO units into the action somewhere.

    Caveat:  If you take India early, and can hold it, I like to put my first IC THERE!

  • No more than 2 are necessary.  No less than 2 are necessary.  Manchuria and French Indo China are the locations.


  • Octo,

    Again you need to do some qualifying…

    Let’s say that a commonly posted KJF is used… India builds an India IC, and US builds a Sinkiang IC (I think both are HORRIBLE moves, but let’s go with it for a minute…)

    In J1, Japan builds trannie and land forces.  Their initial objective will be to reinforce their mainland areas, especially FIC, and take China.

    In J2, more trannies, more ground forces, and some or all of Japan’s intial tranny capacity and ground units will be sent to FIC.

    In J3, Japan takes India, FIC trannies move back to Japan to get new units from the J2 build and offload to Asia, preferable Manchuria.  J2 trannies offload to Bury of FIC, depending on where Japan is thin, and where the Allies have strengthened.  Part of J3 purchase was an IC that will be placed in Manchuria.

    J4 or J5, the Sinkiang IC is taken.

    At this point, Japan has 3 mainland IC’s… India, Sinkiang, Manchuria, plus 5 or 6 TRN off Japan, and of course their remaining Capital ships in a standoff against US Naval forces that are probably nearby…

    Build INF/ART in Sinkiang, ARM in India and Manch, INF and ARM in Japan.  All 3 avenues of attack on Russia are WIDE open.  Germany has made major inroads against Russia since UK was spending so much of their money (15 in UK1, minimum 9 in UK2 and UK3) in India, and US also spent a lot of money in Asia (15 in US1, then probably 10 each in US2, 3, 4).

  • I like the way you’re looking at it switch.  Of course, you’re right - Sinkiang and India are horrible moves, but your strategy as far as how to handle Japan’s units seems right on.  😉

  • Saying that Sinkiang and India IC’s are horrible moves tells me that you play very limited opponents. Either that or you can’t see the grander strategy.

    I would agree that the move is wasted so long as just the one is built. However, with a US IC in Sinkiang plus the UK IC in India, UK and US are putting a slight pressure on Japan (who has the advantage, I admit), while relieving the back of Russia.

    We played a game yesterday, where this was done. It helped Russia focus on Germany, even if they had to give up the far eastern areas to japan. With Russias back free, they went for Germany, with the help of UK/US forces from UK. Germany was quickly crushed in the wedge created by Russia - UK/US. By the time Germany was out of the picture, Japan had captured both India and Sinkiang, but they were acceptable losses. And as must happen when only one of the Axis are left, Japan was also crushed.

  • Bedog, not sure what opponents you are playing… but the removal of THAT many IPC’s from the German attack means Germany should be rocking Russia’s socks.

    And that “slight” pressure you talk about comes at an exceedingly high price…  the fall of Russia.

    Japan can take BOTH of those IC’s, even with the US and UK pouring all they can into them.

    The opportunity cost of those IC’s… loss of 15IPC’s each in turn 1, then of the 25 or so IPC’s each round to maintian them… is simply too high.  Especially the draw off UK, that really NEEDS to have a TRN fleet to threaten Western and other German territories while also reinforcing Karelia, etc.

    You take that away, and Russia WILL fall.

    If it does not, check your German play…

  • As I stated, Japan has the upper hand.
    And yes, statistics speak in you favour.

    But to call it a horrible move still seems to push it a bit too far 😉

    And the 3 IPC’s that Japan “get for free” in the east are easily countered in the west for russia.

    I’m not questioning your japanese stratey, I’m just saying that the IC’s in India and Sinkiang aren’t necessarily horrible 😄

    It must be added that the US invaded Algeria on US1, and thus put pressure on Germany that way, so Germany was split between holding the west, exchanging blows with russia and trying to get africa.
    And yes, I do believe that the German player made some mistakes in the game we played. And, in my opinion, his fatality rose from the fact that he overstretched.

  • OK, do not want to get into a fight but…

    Without UK reinforcing Africa via India… Africa is LOST to UK, period.  Anything less is abysmal German play.  The US landing in Algeria is NOT an issue if Germany still ahs their BB and TRN in the Med.  The ARM and INF from the Egypt attack in G1 raid UK IPC’s in Africa, the original Algeria forces, plus reinforcements from Southern, hold the US at bay, then kick them out.

    Meanwhile, Germany has NO allied reinforcements to face in the Karelia/Archangel avenue of attack… so those gains are free.  All Germany has to counter is the West Russia Stack, wich it will begin doing in G2 with their Eastern Stack.

    Russia start to lose income, UK gets down to half income about the time India falls and Japan starts BUILDING there… to send TANKS against Caucuses about the tiem Germany is laying seige to it…

    It is just a really bad move.  You MIGHT hold Japan back for a bit that way… but the opportunity cost is DREADFUL for Russia.

    I am already comitted to the next 2 games (one against Octo’s “new” Japan strat, and a re-match with Tri with me as Allies), r I would volunteer to take you on and prove it to ya 🙂

    If you want to put this thread on hold, e-mail me in a few weeks and we can play this game out… you as allies with a comittment to 2 Allied IC’s in Turn 1, me as Axis…

  • I must admit, I am foaming at the mouth to play.

    The only way I can prove my point is to play…and play…and play.


Suggested Topics

  • 32
  • 5
  • 18
  • 32
  • 2
  • 7
  • 6
  • 32
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys