Japanes IC on J1?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I usually ignore a German carrier.

    Germany is at such a HUGE loss with a carrier build on Germany 1 that British fighters and Russian soldiers can keep Germany bottled up a good 6 rounds.  Which is plenty of time for the American and British Industrials to kick Japan off the mainland and America’s fleet to sink the Japanese fleet.



  • I agree Darth, it CAN be countered.

    But, it does have advantages if played well by Japan.

    And for the first 3 turns, the USA Fleet is not a threat, and Japan can split their navy for 2 rounds and re-consolidate on J3 after establishing their IC in Asia.

    It all comes down to SZ52 dice on the attack and counter… bad dice for Japan is Japan in trouble, bad dice for the US is US dramatically slowed…


  • 2007 AAR League

    that’s what I semi-developped an Pac strat with the attack on the Jap sub and reinforcing Pearl with the UK fgt…
    conserve the rest of the UK fleet and bring the rest of the US fleet from the atlantic into the Pacific and counter Pearl with the US and baring dice… you should have a considerable advantage over the Japaneese here…

    bring on the Japs


  • 2007 AAR League

    Never buy a J1 IC because, even if the Allies don’t go KJF, on J1 you can’t really tell in which territory it will be most useful. Usually it’s FIC, but not always.

    For KJF:

    If the UK consolidates in sz30, go after sz52 in force. The UK force can’t get any bigger and the US will make up the bulk of the Allied Pacific force so don’t give them a head  start. Don’t needlessly sacrifice Japanese navy so go after sz52 in force always, anyway. Unless Russia stacks in Bury. Then it becomes conditional on board position to determine what’s the right move.

    NEVER sacrifice your bomber and always keep it in Bury. From there it can threaten every sea zone surrounding your islands and still reach most of the tradable Asian territories.

    Fighters not on carriers should also be based on the coast (FIC, Kwang, Bury). They can cover your land forces and it allows you to use 4 fighters per CV. 2 land based fighters can attack a sea zone 4 moves away and land on the CV while the 2 CV based fighters can land on an available island within range.

    Subs are Japan’s best friend. Build as many as you need to keep the edge over the US fleet if it moves out of sz55. Don’t spend the money on a 3rd CV unless the UK/US combined fleet puts you seriously behind in firepower and you already have 8 fighters to max out the CV capacity you start with.

    Minus ships on TP and newly built navy protection duty, base your entire fleet out of sz50 unless a juicy target presents itself. Keep your naval influence projected as far out as possible for as long as possible. Don’t give the Allied shipping any extra freedom of movement.

    Clean ALL of the infantry off the islands as soon as possible if you can do it. Even the hard to protect outlying ones. When the Allies finally land on them, they will be bringing massive firepower so the infantry left behind will be a lot less useful than if they were evacuated to Asia.

    And, finally, don’t build an IC unless Japan is making over 40 IPC’s. With most of your income going into high priced aircraft and navy, you’ll have a hard time maxing out Japan’s production since you’ll most likely also be producing a few armor for offense, as well, because your land based fighters may be tied to the coastal territories.

    Japan can go a long way in keeping the Allied fleet out of their backyard. In the case of KJF, Africa becomes the key. If the US makes a token effort to keep Africa out of German hands, the Japanese will be able to build less navy and more ground units. If the US goes full bore at Japan, Germany gets Africa for a song and, as long as they can keep the UK and Russian ground forces separated, they should be able to force Russia from turning an offensive eye toward Asia.


  • Moderator

    @U-505:

    Minus ships on TP and newly built navy protection duty, base your entire fleet out of sz50 unless a juicy target presents itself. Keep your naval influence projected as far out as possible for as long as possible. Don’t give the Allied shipping any extra freedom of movement.

    I agree with pretty much all you wrote, but wanted to highlight this, because I’ve had the greatest success against the KJF (or slow Japan First) that I advocate by doing exactly that.  I don’t necessarily use Sz 50, but I threaten sz 55 and shipping lanes enough to where the US is the one being defensive and will likely have to fight through the J navy to even move or spend a bunch of extra time/turns building up an offensive fleet (subs), which is much different than the defensive fleet type builds with the US (ac + ftrs).


  • 2007 AAR League

    Absolutely.

    The US may eventually push you back to sz60, but I see no reason to go there and wait for them to show up. Get in their faces. If the UK moves to sz30, do what you can to keep the UK fleet from joining the US. Make them go out of their way. Pressure them into making mistakes. In a KJF, the last thing Japan should to do is make anything easy for the Allied fleets.

    And I like sz50 because it covers all of my Japanese islands as well as Hawaii, New Zealand, and the northern part of Australia. It keeps the UK from trying a backdoor land grab while I’m watching the US especially since I leave my high priced islands empty. A TP covered by that fleet can clean off all of my islands except E Indies while a second one shuttles them to Asia. It also gives me a chance to make the UK TP’s virtually useless if given the opportunity to hit Australia without sacrificing the ability to reform in a decent position next turn.


  • 2007 AAR League

    In the actual war, SZ 50 is where Japan had there main naval base of operations in the Pacific (besides Japan of course)



  • We played some games this weekend.  I played the Russians and my friend that loves the J1 IC played the japs.  I pretty much managed to crush all his advances into Russia, take back Sinkiang and China and even move down to threaten India (after he’d taken the factory that my UK/US ally built there against my advice.)  He only had two transports working around Japan the entire time and built a ton of Air Force to send in with his tanks produced at his mainland factories.  It took some time and a lot of dead Russian infantry but the 6 tanks per turn split between two different fronts just didn’t hold up.



  • After the first 1-2 rounds Japan cannot advance strongly on more than 1 avenue.  By J3, Russia should have stabilized their front lines, and if played with any skill at all they will have counter-attack capability against advancing Japan forces.



  • Switch, but limiting Japanese advance to only 1 major avenue it is a simpler situation to handle for Russia, or not?
    I believed that using more than one lane of advance, may be more dangerous for the russian army.

    The problem for russian is that Japan have air forces able to switch back and forth between the attacking lanes, focusing on the more needed territory (for this aiming Sinkiang is a critical territory)



  • First off, two of the lanes converge at Novo.  Bury/Yakut forces will end up staging in Novo, and China/Sinkiang forces also end up in Novo.

    Advancing with them split allows a Russian defender staged in Novo to attack one or the other and blast through the Japan front lines, possibly causing serious havoc for Japan and a serious delay in resuming the advance (especially if the breakthrough is into Sinkiang because of how slow it is for Japan to get forces to China en masse.

    Advancing Southern and Northern does not allow for FIG exchange, especially if the Allied player uses their 3 AA’s (Russia’s, Caucuses, and India’s) effectively.  You will have your AF whittled away by AA fire going back and forth across a fortified Kazakh or Novo.

    Also, coastal based air cannot be used effectively once you reach Novo, or beyond India, at least not if you have Allied ships in the Pacific that you need your FIGs to help defend against.  The same is true of supporting a southern attack route since you have to pull both TRNs and a couple of Capital Ships to SZ36/35/34 to keep the forces flowing, and again, if the allies are in the Pacific, a split fleet as Japan is a VERY bad idea.



  • Ok, I understood. Russia place her Eastern forces on Novosibirsk and is able to counter the Japanese atvance from any attack lanes.
    So we made an error with Russia in our games. We try to stop Japanese advance in Yakut, Sinkiang and Kazak.
    Giving up some territories (Yakut and Sinkiang) allows for a more efficient Russian defense from Novosibirsk.



  • Yep.

    If Novo is where you make your stand, you can reinforce with INF from Moscow in a single round.  Also ARM can go back and forth from Caucuses to Novo as needed, and FIGs based in either Caucuses or Novo can be used to strafe Yakut, Sinkiang, Kazakh, Persia, Ukraine, West Russia, Archangel and still land on any of your defensive stacks in Novo, Caucuses, West Russia and Russia.



  • Transports > ICs

    Ur frend, sur.  Is an iddyut.  Lol.  Altho screaming is teh secks.

    Okay, WHY transports > ICs on J1:

    1.  16 IPCs for two transports lets you transport 4 units (2 infantry and 2 non infantry) to any of French Indochina, Manchuria, Kwangtung, Burytia, or Soviet Far East.  Those two transports can ALSO be used if the US decides to fight a naval battle in the Pacific.  Those transports can ALSO be used to ferry infantry off of Japan’s isolated islands.  (If the US decides to whack out some islands, two Jap infantry die quick to probable US attack of 2 US infantry plus 2+ US fighters and possible battleship support shot.  It’s far more economical to get those Japanese infantry onto the Asian mainland where they can do some good).

    2.  15 IPC for an industrial complex does allow you to produce 3 units (depending on your placement), (possibly 4 units if you’re going for - I think it’s the island complex at East Indies - but that last is really a gambit whose description falls out of the scope of the original post).  Now - what are you producing with Japan?  Initially, if you purchase transports, you won’t hit that limit of 8 units produced per turn.  Considering you want 6+ transports (4 to ferry off Japan, and 2 for the islands), you’ll be producing transports until the third turn anyways, so you won’t need the extra production capacity until then.

    –-
    Romulus, you need another thread to debate the usage of Russia against Japan.  Requires too much discussion to fit into a topic directed towards Jap IC on J1.



  • IF you are not faced with a KJF by the United States, there is a small advantage in number of units sent toward Moscow in the first 3 turns of the game by purchasing an IC on J1.

    It is not a huge advantage, but it is significant.  The J1 IC is, like many other early moves, a gamble.  And the success or failure of it is contingent upon the reaction (if any) to the build.


  • 2007 AAR League

    My standard Jap purchase (unless on a heave KJF) is IC on Fic, 2 trn



  • @ncscswitch:

    IF you are not faced with a KJF by the United States, there is a small advantage in number of units sent toward Moscow in the first 3 turns of the game by purchasing an IC on J1.

    It is not a huge advantage, but it is significant.  The J1 IC is, like many other early moves, a gamble.  And the success or failure of it is contingent upon the reaction (if any) to the build.

    Whether you purchase an industrial complex on a 3 IPC territory on J1, or produce 2 transports, that investment still doesn’t see Japanese ground units into Asia until J2.

    On J2, units at an industrial complex are forced to appear where the industrial complex is.  Units loaded onto transports have a much greater range.

    And at any rate, on J2, the 15 IPC industrial complex will get you THREE units into Asia.  The 16 IPC transport buy will get you FOUR units into Asia.

    What NCSSwitch is probably thinking is that an industrial complex in French Indochina lets you set up a quicker “feed” into India.  That is - two transports moving from Japan to French Indochina can drop 4 units, but on the next turn, those two transports must return to Japan (so will have to drop units at Burytia or Kwangtung next turn).  If the transports alternate pickups, that’s two units a turn reinforced into French Indochina (and two units a turn into the Burytia or Kwangtung front).  On the other hand, three units produced at French Indochina at an industrial complex is three units.



  • @newpaintbrush:

    @ncscswitch:

    IF you are not faced with a KJF by the United States, there is a small advantage in number of units sent toward Moscow in the first 3 turns of the game by purchasing an IC on J1.

    It is not a huge advantage, but it is significant.  The J1 IC is, like many other early moves, a gamble.  And the success or failure of it is contingent upon the reaction (if any) to the build.

    Whether you purchase an industrial complex on a 3 IPC territory on J1, or produce 2 transports, that investment still doesn’t see Japanese ground units into Asia until J2.

    ….

    On the other hand, three units produced at French Indochina at an industrial complex is three units.

    Those COULD be three TANKS, which two transports can not deliver.

    I agree, the difference can be a slight advantage.



  • @axis_roll:

    Those COULD be three TANKS, which two transports can not deliver.

    Sir, are you proposing a land war in Asia?!  Without infantry?!

    I would say - when given a choice between 3 tanks, and 2 infantry, an artillery, and either another infantry or a tank, I would choose the infantry, unless it’s a Tank Dash game.  And since I am not a general proponent of Tank Dash (I think it’s viable in certain conditions but certainly not always), I say TWO TRANSPORTS is teh secks.

    “You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia,’ but only slightly less well known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’”


  • Customizer

    One factor many people overlook is that a Japanese transport, unlike an IC, can be sunk.  And if the Allies are on the ball, they will place bombers in range to do just this.  An all-transport Japanese strategy then absorbs costly warships to defend the transports.

    I personally prefer an Indochina tank factory and a strong push into the decisive India/Persia/Caucasus area where the game is usually won or lost.  From here you can still cover Manchuria and Sinkiang and give the Allies something to worry about other than your transports which can now round up stray infantry unharassed.  You might have to surrender a few IPCs in Siberia but getting the most materiel into the decisive area in a constant stream from r2 is the key to victory.


  • 2007 AAR League

    One factor many people overlook is that an IC needs to be protected from SBR. After the first IC(which can be covered by the AA in Japan), all subsequent IC’s cost 20 IPC’s for the IC and the AA to protect it. Those very same Allied bombers that can be positioned to attack TP’s will also be positioned to bomb IC’s.

    In a KGF, when was the last time Japan had to load it’s second CV, anyway? Or even used the DD after attacking sz52 on J1? Those units are available and unneccesary for just about anything except covering transport movement. Plus, if you are using 4 TP’s in sz60 to unload units they are usually deterrent enough and you can always put the sub with them, too. Who in their right mind would risk attacking 4 TP, 1 SS with a bomber when they are only likely to kill the sub?


  • Moderator

    I agree, the trns aren’t that hard to protect.  Japan in most games will have 2 BB, 2 AC when it comes to J2, and as U-505 points out there is a pretty good chance you’ll still have your DD.



  • @newpaintbrush:

    What NCSSwitch is probably thinking is that an industrial complex in French Indochina lets you set up a quicker “feed” into India.

    Actually no.  What I AM thinking about is an 8 unit build limit on Tokyo.

    Having all the income on the world means jack if you can;t build more than 8 units a turn.  That is only enough to keep EVEN with Russia, and you have to OUTBUILD Russia as Japan if you want to win.



  • @U-505:

    One factor many people overlook is that an IC needs to be protected from SBR. After the first IC(which can be covered by the AA in Japan), all subsequent IC’s cost 20 IPC’s for the IC and the AA to protect it.

    Actually no, they do not.  When Japan has enough income that they need a 3rd IC, then there is no place in range of at least one of the mainland IC’s for the allies to base a BOM.



  • @ncscswitch:

    @U-505:

    One factor many people overlook is that an IC needs to be protected from SBR. After the first IC(which can be covered by the AA in Japan), all subsequent IC’s cost 20 IPC’s for the IC and the AA to protect it.

    Actually no, they do not.  When Japan has enough income that they need a 3rd IC, then there is no place in range of at least one of the mainland IC’s for the allies to base a BOM.

    If i’m going to bomb a city the aa at 1@6 doesn’t really scare me. the benefits seem to be better than the small risk. its really a waste of 5 ipc.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 32
  • 26
  • 18
  • 26
  • 2
  • 3
  • 6
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

14.0k
Users

34.3k
Topics

1.4m
Posts