Japanes IC on J1?

I find it is not cost effective to go island hopping unless I am in full KJF mode or the Japanese were foolish and put their fleet in the Med and then let me close the Suez trapping them between the allied fleets and a close canal.

Yea, I’ve used an Egyptian one the same way once.  Though, what really kept me from an invasion wasn’t the IC or your silly Submarines, which did nothing but die.  It was lack of strength to follow up the invasion.

im playing as japan this weekend and im pretty much going to abandon most of the stuff in the pacific other than borneo and phillipines my first turn im going to take china and put some pressure on russia, and take india with a massive invasion just to get the allies out of eastern asia, my long term goal is to make my way over to africa because the people i play with never seem to care about it and mount an invasion force against the US and England while germany holds back russia, only challenge is i have to do it quick before U.S puts all those I.P.C’s to use

Not much sense to Germany or Russia building ICs in Revised.  Germany already starts with the ability to make 16 units a turn–that’s all you need.  The only interesting places I’ve seen Germany place an IC are Western Europe (for naval strats) and Ukraine (to help aggressive stack there).  And I’d argue stacking Ukraine is better achieved by simply buying more land units and moving em out.

ICs are expensive enough as it is–no need to buy em w/o reason.

@bb82:

1:

6 Russians @ Bury
UK bomber @ Nov
UK destroyer and carrier killes Japan tranny
UK uses one tranny load each, to take New Guinea and Borneo
UK sub survives, Japan sub dead.
UK puts fighter with Pearl fleet.

Maybe if SFE and Yakut are both empty, use an amphibious tank to take both (you can do this right?).  If there’s one infantry in Yakut and everything’s empty behind you can try this too.  But maybe it’s more useful for the sea battles.

Since GB is committing so many resources to the Pacific, Germany might be able to take the Atlantic.  It’s interesting that GB sent the Carrier to help knock out the Transport.  I prefer to send mine to Madagascar.

The Axis generally fights like a sword and shield, with Japan usually being the sword, and Germany the shield.  In this case it’s reversed, so Germany needs to get aggressive.  Some of the pressure’s been taken off him.  However it’s been placed on Japan.  To fight defensively Japan needs to go for naval superiority units.  Kill the enemy ships! There are targets galore!

HOW COME THE MESSAGE BOX FREAKS OUT WHEN I TRY TO MAKE THIS POST LONGER!!!  :x :x :x

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

Obviously this is a niche strategy, but there could be some use for it - it may allow the Allies to take one of the money islands as soon as US3. Here’s the plan

UK 1:
Unite Pac fleets in sz 30, build IC Aus

Attacking sz 30 is very risky for Japan, and it forces Japan to either to do Pearl light (with more risk of an unfavourable outcome) or skip Pearl altogether.

If Japan does not hit sz 30, build AC, fig, sub, trn on US1.

UK 2:
Move sz 30 fleet to sz 40, build AC sz 40

This threatens a unification of the UK/US fleets in sz 45 on US2/UK3. This combined fleet would consist of BB, 3 AC, 5 fig, 2 sub, 2 DD, 3 trn. This is too much for Japan to take on. If you add the 6th fig on US3/UK4 (and perhaps a UK sub that you build on UK3), you can take Bor or EI on these turns. Your combined Allied fleet would be so large that Japan has to bring something along the lines of 2 BB, 2 AC, 6 fig, bomber, DD, 5 trn, 4 sub to have a good shot at it, which requires a serious investment in the first few turns.

Without the UK IC, you would not have the extra UK carrier - a loaded carrier can make a big difference, and it may save you one turn in bringing down the Japanese in the Pacific. Of course, it comes at a substantial cost against Germany - that’s why it’s not played in most games, but it’s worth a try perhaps.

Japan can try to thwart your unification by moving its fleet to sz 45 itself on J2. I’d have to double check whether that is a worthwhile strategy.

Thank you kindly