J1 Mainland IC

@GuderianHG:

Because of the point where I think an EI IC might be useful in taking Africa, I can’t really see the transports being an issue - Russia is about to fall and you have landed enough hardware between BUR and NOV to finish them over the next 2-3 turns. Therefore you use the four Japan transports from EI in a 2 x 2 movement into Africa. Under these circumstances they are no more ‘dedicated’ than they were at Japan.

**You know, you’d think that with those supposedly long posts that I write that I’d have time to address things properly.  But actually, I often leave a lot unsaid (omg text wall!)

By ‘dedicated’, I mean dedicated to that one purpose.  They are pretty useless for anything else, and for various reasons - well, I’ll get to this in a minute.**

For me, at least, the next victim would probably be Britain and even before Moscow has fallen you’re making progress on cutting the next targets income.

OK, yeah.  Yeah.  Good times.  That’s pretty inarticulate . . . I should say “Even without specifics, you’ve given enough of a time and situational reference that the situation can be addressed, and I agree that the time and situational references you made are possible or even - probable.”  But who wants to read all that?

Assuming UK1 sank the Kwangtung transport, what’s the specifics of time and situation by which a East Indies IC becomes “profiable”?  I think there are two situations; one in a KGF, and one in a KJF.  Obviously those are quite different.  For KJF, I think that once US reaches the western Pacific, Japan can use an East Indies IC to bolster its defense of the Pacific Rim with immediate reinforcements.  This is highly theoretical, as I haven’t done any proper analysis of the situation yet - it’s just a FEELING I have that it’s POSSIBLE.  Better than using those IPCs for subs and fighters?  Very possibly not - PROBABLY not - but MAYBE . . . Anyways, I digress.

Let us say UK dispersed its Indian fleet, attacking the Solomons and failing or succeeding (possibly sending the Indian fighter to land on the US carrier at Pearl), either retaking or not retaking Anglo-Egypt because of German bid to Africa, or attacking Borneo.  Regardless, the important thing is that UK dispersed its fleet; the game transposes eventually.  Let us also say that Russia put at most 1 infantry in Burytia, putting 3-4 infantry in Yakut.

Japan has 1 transport on J1 and builds 3 transport 1 tank.  Japan does Pearl light with 1 sub (optional), 1 destroyer, 4-5 fighter, 1 bomber, depending on whether or not the UK fighter went to Pearl.  Japan attacks China with infantry and 1-2 fighters.  Japan attacks Burytia with battleship support shot and two infantry, or if going aggro, infantry and tank.  Noncombat Japan sends 1 battleship 2 carrier 4 fighter to Solomons (this can be blocked by UK Australia transport to New Guinea, which is a KJF indicator; note UK fleet at west of Algeria is KGF indicator because of probable US1 fleet consolidation there). French Indochina is vulnerable to UK invasion.  Manchuria is vulnerable to Russian invasion if the Jap attack on Burytia failed (unlikely).  Burytia is vulnerable to Russian counterattack with fighters from Moscow and Yakut infantry.  There are probably 4 ish Japanese infantry in China that are vulnerable to Russian counterattack.  Japan has at end of J1 - assuming aggro move of dumping tank to Burytia J1, 4 inf 1 art 1 tank.

Before J2, US shows its hand by buying Pacific or Atlantic (note US1 can consolidate fleet to Algeria for a stall play for Africa and still go KJF).  Russia attacks Japan at Burytia or not (if it does, Japan may lose a tank, but Japan plasters the Yakut infantry next turn leaving eastern Russia defenseless and uses the J1-built tank to blitz Soviet Far East next turn while keeping its transports in position), UK attacks Japan or not (Japan can retake French Indochina easily with just two transports plus bomber and battleship support shot and UK will probably not be able to counter, while the Solomon Island carriers move to Japan to escort transports there).  Those are the attack possibilities, so it is likely that at most UK took French Indochina with 1 infantry (which could be prevented with 1 Jap infantry), or perhaps UK flew the UK bomber east on UK1 (a KJF indicator) and used it to help capture French Indochina - regardless.

Japan now has 4 transports and 34 IPC (33 income with China and Burytia and 1 saved) unless UK captured Borneo.  Japan builds 1 transport 5 infantry 2 tank, or with 30 IPC (loss of Borneo) 1 transport 7 infantry, prioritizing for this turn recapture of Borneo if necessary (unfortunate but necessary), protection of the Japanese transports, and moving infantry into Asia.  Fortunately, fighters at Solomon that would probably be of little use otherwise when the US abandons the Pacific can be used against Borneo, but doing so leaves them out of position for J3 attack on Asia.  Alternatively, Japan builds 2 transports 6 infantry or 2 transports 3 infantry 1 tank for a more gradual build in Asia and faster progress in the Atlantic (probably better long-term if the Germans aren’t going for a consolidated push into Caucasus)

If Borneo was captured and UK2 fleet dispersed at beginning of J2, 1 transport heads to Borneo picking up 2 infantry from Phillipine or Japan  joined by Solomon carrier and fighter, 1 transport to French Indochina with 2 Japan ground units joined by Jap battleship and bomber to recapture, 1 transport to Kwangtung unescorted picking up 2 infantry from Phillipine or Japan, 1 transport east of Japan picks up Wake island and offloads Jap infantry, joined by Solomon carrier while Jap air hunts UK fleet.  If Borneo was NOT captured, 2 transports head to French Indochina with everything as described previously excepting you could put 2 transports at French Inodchina and 2 transports east of Japan.  On J3, one of the French Indochina transports picks up East Indies infantry, and the four other transports offload Japan’s units.

Alternatively, with six transports and not enough units to offload from Japan on J3, instead on J2, Japan sends transports south to pickup infantry and attack Australia, in the end putting less into Asia early, but picking up territory on the way.

In any event, to this point, Japan’s been using up most or all of its income.  On J3, if there is resistance in Asia, Japan can build a mix of infantry and tanks or just infantry and an IC or save some IPC towards a future IC.

So this brings us to the midgame; you build an IC on J3 or J4 and start producing 11 units a turn between Japan and probably either French Indochina or India (probably).  Japan’s income is edging to 35+, and with a concentration of IPCs, Japan might be getting some additional income, and the islands are empty J4-5 (possibly with Australia taken by that time).  So you have extra transports (or so it seems), and you’re producing 11 units a turn, pressuring Russia, and there’s not much else to do but buy another industrial complex maybe J6-8.  The question is - should it be East Indies?

I think not.  Even assuming you built a 7th transport for Japan, that means you have 4 transports for Japan and 3 discretionary.  You need at least 2 transports to offload East Indies to India, or 4 transports to offload to Africa’s west coast every turn.  But consider that by J6-8 Japan should be making a serious case for claiming and keeping Persia.

What if, then, instead of using 8 IPC to build an eighth transport to offload 4 units to Africa every turn and 15 IPC to produce 4 units a turn, you instead use 15 IPC to produce 3 units a turn at India (if you don’t already have an IC there), or French Indochina (if you grabbed India early), and leave the 3 transports you have south of Persia?  I think that is preferable.  With even an IC producing 3 units, Japan has a 14 unit capacity, which is 42 IPC pure infantry, and if you want some tanks or artillery mixed in, you’re accounting for 45-50 IPC easily, which is all Japan’s income.

That is to say, if you DO build an IC, I don’t think you need the 1 more unit that can be produced at East Indies.  Nor do I think Japan can afford to buy another transport at that point, as if Japan DOES buy a second IC, all its production capacity will be tied up.

What about the positional advantage of offloading East Indies to Africa?  I don’t think there IS a significant positional advantage, particularly counting the costs involved.  If you put Japanese transports at Persia and drain Persia, Japan can hit anywhere along the east coast of Africa instead of just the northeast coast.  That’s Kenya and Union of South Africa (key is the latter), and any Allied attack into Persia can be countered by units stacked at India plus the transports bringing units back.

True, if Japan holds Caucasus, bleeding Persia bleeds Japan’s reinforcements.  But Japan does not HAVE to bleed Persia; Japan can station transports at French Indochina to bleed there instead.

Additionally, extra Japanese transports can be used to move infantry from French Indochina to Persia, or to threaten or claim Western Canada, or for any number of other reasons.  If need be, they could even sail into the Mediterranean (with an escort)

So - that is, I think that if you lock 6 transports up (4 offloading from Japan and 2 from East Indies), or even 4 at East Indies for a total of 8 transports, I think you greatly decrease Japan’s flexibility and options.  True, you could use the East Indies transports for any of the things I mentioned above, but if East Indies produces ground units, East Indies MUST have at least 2 transports every turn, which means either you build additional transports to maintain flexibility (which even rich Japan may not be able to afford easily), or lock all your transports into relatively inflexible positions.

ZOMG text wall.  :-o

Not even going to try and read all that tonight.

Anyway I find that as Japan I like transports, and lots of them. There’s a whole lot of infantry on the islands to grab, they can threaten US, take Australia, prepare to assault Africa, and contribute to general mobility. Unless I start outstripping the 8 unit limit on Japan I never build ICs. That doesn’t happen till about J4 or 5 though, depending on the game. I don’t see the point of a East Indies IC if the game is true KGF, as by then if things are going as they should be you’ve already pressed through India, Sinkiang, and are pressuring past Yakut into the Russian heartland. Might as well build them on the frontlines.

And sometimes the allies are nice enough to build ICs for you in India/Sinkiang.  :-D

@GuderianHG:

@Gerbilkit:

And sometimes the allies are nice enough to build ICs for you in India/Sinkiang.  :-D

Yeah, I’ve made that mistake! Once bitten, twice shy  :-P

It’s not a bad strategy if you’re going KJF. It just requires a lot of coordination between the allies. It’s an all or nothing deal really.  It’s not going to work unless Russia defends Sinkiang and both ICs are built on R1, followed by massive naval builds by the US.  If you only do part of the plan then Japan parties in Asia.  :-P

@GuderianHG:

@Gerbilkit:

And sometimes the allies are nice enough to build ICs for you in India/Sinkiang.  :-D

Yeah, I’ve made that mistake! Once bitten, twice shy  :-P

Believe me, by the time I get around to putting Industrials in India and/or Sinkiang with the allies, Japan’s already half dead, I’m just reinforcing the idea that you are dead and should quit the game at that point. :P

Generally speaking, we’re talking a Japan who lost half their fleet in SZ 52 (Sub, Carrier, 2-4 fighters, battleship, destroyer), got pounded in China (lost maybe 5 or 6 infantry) and has England and America crawling right up their Imperial Sun.  (BTW, the losses are not just from Japan’s attacks, also from Japan’s defenses.)

Then, sure, it’s already game over for Japan, so why not reinforce the Pacific and keep them out forever.

@ncscswitch:

The big clue for me that Japan needs to surrender is when Russia is building BB’s and TRNs with their IC in Manchuria  :evil:

Dunno about the IC in Manchuria, but I have put Carrier, 2 Fighters, Battleship in the water in SZ 16 in one round with Russia.  That’s usually a pretty clear signal that the game’s over. 60 IPC in equipment and all, ya know.

In my opinion the only riht thing to do with Japan is to build 2 IC in first round
Placed in Kwangtung and Manchuria.
I attack China with 6 infantry and leaves one behind in French Indochina.
Of course clear as much hostile navy as possible and land at least 3 fighters in Manchuria together with 1 infantry and 1 armor from Japan with the transport from 61. On that way you are safe enough to the next round and if britain is taking French indochina i take it back.
I believe that if they take french indochina only is an advantage for japan by reducing the stack in India

By the way we always plays with national advantages. And therefore 99,9% of the games Britain starts with a IC in india

Niels

I only build 2 IC’s in Japan is too heavily pressed navally for 3-4 transports to survive right then. (Say, British ran all over the place, took Borneo, and have a lot of ships in attack range that it’s impractical for Japan to wipe them all).

IC’s without AA are also vulnerable to UK, later US strategic bombing ‘for free’ (1,2,3,3,3,3 averages 2.5 IPC damage, better than 3.5*5/6 = 2.92 vs Germany with a 15/6 = 2.5 IPC risk of losing bomber). Only later can Japan have a 3-area-deep conquest for them to be safe.

I’ll build two Japanese Industrials on the Mainland in one of two situations:

1. Most Likely - I expect a Kill Japan First allied strategy.  Either because of National Advantages selected, or because of previous experience with the person or because of how Russia and England developed their turns or all of the above.  In this case, I cannot expect to have transports and surface ships available for moving units from Mainland China to the Asian sea board, so the complexes are worth their weight in gold.

2. Least Likely - I plan to engage in a Kill America first strategy.  Again, I won’t have transports and surface ships to protect them for long, so I’ll need the complexes eventually.