Japanese IC – East Indies



  • Hey all. Great forum you have here!!

    I have been playing with a japanese strat that involves my 1st IC in east indies verus mainland asia. I would eventually supplement with an ic in India, as this puts axis troops on the doorstep of caucus. Basically, I want a more liquid Japanese assault, with optimally 6+ trans with Japan.

    On round 1, I buy 3 trans, and 2 inf. This give me 4, or 5 if the uk was nice enough to save me one!! I buy another tran on round 2. giving me 5-6 trans. on round 3, i buy an IC in the East Indies. and I have my transports in position to shuttle troops round 5+. So i want to hear pros and cons of this. Here are mine:

    Pros: 
        –    By round 5, i can shuttle 4 land units into India instead of the 3 a mainland IC gives me.
        –    I have an IC safe from bombers and safe from land attacks.
        –    In conjunction with my 6 trans, i have added flexiiblity. I can just use 2 transports to shuttle to india as long as i want too. However, say I want to contend in africa, i can bring two more trans over, and can have four units pumping directly into africa a turn.

    Cons:
        –    I rely on navy to get units to russia. As japan you do anyway, with the land bridge on the mainland, but this bridge is a little more vulnerable.
        –    Its costs 31 ipc to deliver 4 units a turn, versus 15 ipc to deliver 3 units a turn.

    So i guess the conclusion i have to make here to have this approach worthwhile is this: The 16 ipc cost, and setup is worth the extra unit per turn, and added striking power into africa.

    …  So is it?



  • If you can be sure of taking out the Allied navies in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, it will be a slightly slow to develop (read Russia a bit stronger) but later a slightly stronger (read harder for the Allies to trade against) strategy.

    I personally would need to play test it a few times to see if the logistics of the extra TRN requirements, and the reduced land forces in the first 2-3 turns, are worth the 1 extra unit per turn that can be produced by EI over say FIC as an alternate IC.



  • or instead you take that 31 ipc and buy 2 mainland IC’s giving you 6 units a turn and you save a dollar.



  • 😐
    Ya, 2 IC in mainland and save the $1 million man hours of production for something else.
    I’ve played you when you used this strat, and it didn’t seem to blossem into anything very positive to me, sorry.
    On the positive side though, it did cause me to build up my US pacific fleet as I recall, which took some pressure off of Germany, so that is an Axis plus. 😉



  • Caveat…

    If USA is building heavily in the Pacific, and Japan can secure SZ60 with partial cash, then a second IC in EI can possibly secure their southern frontier against an island hoping US strat…



  • If the USA were gunning for Japan early on i would be reluctant to spend more or less half my roundly income on an IC until i was feeling secure.

    Plus the IC in EI saves you 1 sz from building from a IC in FIC and the mainland IC allows you to continue the stream towards moscow if you have to use your trans as fodder.

    I can see an EI IC being useful for a specific goal and board situation (like a brazilian IC) but i would be reluctant to include it in a general strategy.



  • It would all come down to the actual R1 and UK 1 moves, as well as how the J1 dice panned out…

    If the R1, G1, and UK1 moves made EI a potential, then buy the IC and roll the J1 dice.  If they go south, you can always choose to place the IC in FIC, Kwang or Manch.  If they meet your needs, the IC goes to EI.



  • @ncscswitch:

    I personally would need to play test it a few times to see if the logistics of the extra TRN requirements, and the reduced land forces in the first 2-3 turns, are worth the 1 extra unit per turn that can be produced by EI over say FIC as an alternate IC.

    I dont think the land forces will be reduced if done correctly. Say i build IC r2. then r3 i build 4 units. r4 i land those units in India. My tran shuck hasnt been disrupted until round 4 when i have to go to EI and grab the equipment. ON round 3, i simply take 1 or 2 trans from the mainland, and drop stuff into FIC. I am in position for the EI drop. I sometimes have 1 tran taking australia that i use, thats why i said 1 or 2 trans from mainland.

    So lets compare to an IC in FIC. r2 purchase the IC. rd 3 build units. r4 move to India. So the IC in EI is superior as far as units in Asia. I have 4 units in India round 4, compared to 3 units with the mainland IC. This is why i started looking at this approach. I followed the typical progress of IC in FIC, then one in India. The downside as i said is u have 2 trans dedicated to this shuck. But that may also be a positive at some point in the game, as it give u felxibility and added striking power to Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt



  • @Crazy:

    😐
    Ya, 2 IC in mainland and save the $1 million man hours of production for something else.
    I’ve played you when you used this strat, and it didn’t seem to blossem into anything very positive to me, sorry.
    On the positive side though, it did cause me to build up my US pacific fleet as I recall, which took some pressure off of Germany, so that is an Axis plus. 😉

    You are correct Ivan. In our game, this was my first attempt at this. I didnt have details or logistics fleshed out. That cant be taken as a true test of usefulness.

    BTW, how do you know who I am?



  • :roll:
    It had to be you!
    because nobody else.
    plays like you do.
            😉



  • 🙂  funny. scoff if u will. i think this idea has merit



  • @AxisOfEvil:

    🙂   funny. scoff if u will. i think this idea has merit

    It has merit like my dog has rabies.

    I don’t have a dog.

    burp anymore.

    Come on, man, an East Indies IC?  Srsly?  So you have another naval point you need to protect, you have four transports shelling out of Japan, another two transports shuttling East Indies, and you already took Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Alaska plus secured Africa?  If you have all that, yeah, blow a wad on an East Indies IC, there’s nothing else to use your transport for.

    But if you don’t have all that, you don’t build an East Indies IC.



  • @Bunnies:

    @AxisOfEvil:

    🙂   funny. scoff if u will. i think this idea has merit

    It has merit like my dog has rabies.

    I don’t have a dog.

    burp anymore.

    Come on, man, an East Indies IC?  Srsly?  So you have another naval point you need to protect, you have four transports shelling out of Japan, another two transports shuttling East Indies, and you already took Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Alaska plus secured Africa?  If you have all that, yeah, blow a wad on an East Indies IC, there’s nothing else to use your transport for.

    But if you don’t have all that, you don’t build an East Indies IC.

    Well Bunny. You certainly add a tone to your posts dont you? Im not saying that the East Indies IC is in additon to anything. Im not sacrificing other goals to have this IC. I replacing basically the FIC complex with this one. I like 6 trans, but its not necessary. You know, you may actually give specific valid reasons why you think the idea has no merit, instead of spending all the effor ton colorful sarcasm.

    Answer me this, what is YOUR approach to the goals you laid out. How many transports do you have, ICs, and where they are located. My typical approach is IC in FIC and IC in India. I think this is common. My alternative is IC in EI and IC in India. So the diff isnt the 15 ipc for the factory, that is the same, the diff lies in the 16 ipc for trans. The plus is an extra unit. Also 2 trans can become very useful for alot of the goals, if not all of them you listed. So if you want to tell me that you think japan having 6 transports is inefficient in getting troops to where they need to be, i will listen. But your post really contributes nothing. “If you have accomplished everything you want to as Japan, then blow a wad on it”.  Useless post.

    Dont reply again unless you have specific or insightful contribution to the pros and cons. I dont need to hear about the fleas on your dog that u dont have or something.



  • @AxisOfEvil:

    @Bunnies:

    @AxisOfEvil:

    🙂   funny. scoff if u will. i think this idea has merit

    It has merit like my dog has rabies.

    I don’t have a dog.

    burp anymore.

    Come on, man, an East Indies IC?  Srsly?  So you have another naval point you need to protect, you have four transports shelling out of Japan, another two transports shuttling East Indies, and you already took Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Alaska plus secured Africa?  If you have all that, yeah, blow a wad on an East Indies IC, there’s nothing else to use your transport for.

    But if you don’t have all that, you don’t build an East Indies IC.

    Well Bunny. You certainly add a tone to your posts dont you? Im not saying that the East Indies IC is in additon to anything. Im not sacrificing other goals to have this IC. I replacing basically the FIC complex with this one. I like 6 trans, but its not necessary. You know, you may actually give specific valid reasons why you think the idea has no merit, instead of spending all the effor ton colorful sarcasm.

    Answer me this, what is YOUR approach to the goals you laid out. How many transports do you have, ICs, and where they are located. My typical approach is IC in FIC and IC in India. I think this is common. My alternative is IC in EI and IC in India. So the diff isnt the 15 ipc for the factory, that is the same, the diff lies in the 16 ipc for trans. The plus is an extra unit. Also 2 trans can become very useful for alot of the goals, if not all of them you listed. So if you want to tell me that you think japan having 6 transports is inefficient in getting troops to where they need to be, i will listen. But your post really contributes nothing. “If you have accomplished everything you want to as Japan, then blow a wad on it”.  Useless post.

    Dont reply again unless you have specific or insightful contribution to the pros and cons. I dont need to hear about the fleas on your dog that u dont have or something.

    well, if i may intervene

    dont take newpaint(his former name) too serious  :lol:

    ok, he can be serious  :?

    he is a good guy, just has his way of saying things, accept him as he is( in the goodnes of its nature)

    dont try to change him :mrgreen: since you wont be able to :mrgreen:

    shall smite thee if you try 😄 :lol:

    Like i am trying to be serious, i am i really am. 8-)

    and dont offend but East Indies IC as a ˝default idea˝ is not so effective



  • If you only knew the power of the Dark Side…
    Newpaintbrush or Bunnies P Wrath posts are one of the distinctive features of this message board.
    The Force is strong with him.
    His style is unique. Do not be distracted by the shape of his posts, pay attention to the essence!!!
    Otherwise you could be smitten by a rubber chicken!  😮

    My topics, instead, are difficult to read for the possibility of english grammar errors… I apologize in advance!

    Back on topic, I have considered the idea of an IC in East Indies. My opinion is: Japan needs to buy IC to place units directly on the mainland. With the East Indies IC the units are still built on an island instead. They need to be transported. I agree that an East Indies IC may have a greater output in terms of number of units build, but 50% of those units must be infantry. You cannot build four tanks and deliver them on the mainland with 2 TRNs. You may shuttle them there using four TRNs but this should mean having 8 total TRNs for Japan.

    Having 2 IC on the mainland I found is more flexible. You may build infantry for a couple of turn and then build tanks for two turns delivering a greater punch on the front with a double wave. Otherwise, if the situation is favourable you may build all tanks and drive to Moscow. I like to have 5-6 TRNs to land 8 units from Japan each turn, in addition to the units build in the mainland IC. But usually the fifth TRN (and eventual sixth one) I use to grab Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar, South Africa, Hawaii and Alaska (and some time even Brazil  :-D). Not in a single turn and not always conqeuring alla of them in the same game naturally, it depends form the board situation but I try to get them as soon as possible. Another use for excess TRNs is to empty the islands, Japan has a lot of infantries ont the island that stay there doing nothing that may be loaded and used more effectively.
    (By the way this is one of the objection that Bunnies P Wrath expressed. If all of those territories are still to conquer is more useful using TRNs to attack them than using them to land units on the mainland instead of producing them directly on the continent.)

    There are also general strategy consideration to do. If Allies commit to a KJF Japan has another vulnerable IC to defend other than the Capital. So the convenience of building an IC may depends on the general positioning of the forces on the board. IMHO an IC in East Indies may be useful: when allies goes KGF and when you have two idle TRNs and you have nothing for them to do and you may afford to unload 4 units per turn in FIC (of which 2 are infantry) and you do not have need to decrease UK income or to retrieve infantry from islands.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Fancy that, the artist formerly known as NPB is being abrasive. He still plays OOB rules. What a loser.  :lol: 😛

    AxisOfEvil, don’t pay it any mind. We rip on each other from time to time. You should have seen the political discussion forum. Suffice it to say that PD was removed not once but twice and is now permanently gone which should give you an indication of how malevolent people got. Bunnies comment was a casual welcome by comparison.

    The problem with the E Indies IC is time as much as it is cost. J5 or J6 seems kind of late to be realizing Japan’s full production potential. Generally, if Japan doesn’t have 2 IC’s and at least 6 TP’s by J4 you’re lagging.

    The 16 extra IPC’s to get the East Indies IC running equals a good amount of ground units that aren’t landing in Asia. When Russia backs out of Asia, you want to be able to advance as quickly as possible everywhere to grab income and draw Russian units away from Germany. And in cases where Russia keeps units behind to contest your advances, you want to use strength to force retreats and prevent Russia from moving freely across the 3 avenues of your advance. Either way, that 16 IPC’s you didn’t spend on ground units is probably going to hurt somewhere.

    Plus, the East Indies IC is limited in it’s threat range. The FIC IC and, to a lesser extent, the Kwang IC threaten both the middle route and the southern route. The E Indies IC threatens only the southern route and if Russia decides to make a stand in Sinkiang or Novosibirsk it becomes less useful.

    Thinking about it, though, I did have a left field idea. I suppose you could use it to bolster a German stronghold in Egypt. It would need a lot of investment and you would have to give it priority from the beginning, but you might be able to hold Africa a long time for your effort as well as keep the US out of the Med. How long you could sustain it is beyond me, especially since it would require a minimum of an extra german TP or an IC in Egypt as well as diverting 4 units out of Germany’s production every turn, but hey, there have been a lot crazier strategies out there.



  • @U-505:

    Fancy that, the artist formerly known as NPB is being abrasive. He still plays OOB rules. What a loser.  :lol: 😛

    I play OOB/FAQ.  As for your loser comment, I will do my usual “I lol’d”.  Your paltry terms of “losing” and “winning” don’t apply to me, especially when I are filled with sandwich.

    Thinking about it, though, I did have a left field idea. I suppose you could use it to bolster a German stronghold in Egypt. It would need a lot of investment and you would have to give it priority from the beginning, but you might be able to hold Africa a long time for your effort as well as keep the US out of the Med. How long you could sustain it is beyond me, especially since it would require a minimum of an extra german TP or an IC in Egypt as well as diverting 4 units out of Germany’s production every turn, but hey, there have been a lot crazier strategies out there.

    Yeah, well, I’m not gonna say an East Indies IC is WRONG, particularly if you’re gonna chop out the time reference and make it an open-ended response.  (That is, if you’re saying “I’m gonna do this on turn one, this on turn two, and build an East Indies IC on turn three”, I’m saying “what, no way, man, how do you know what the board is gonna look like on turn three?”  But if you’re saying “Under such and such conditions I will build East Indies IC”, I say “Yeah, man, that’s worth thinking about”.)



  • @AxisOfEvil:

    Well Bunny. You certainly add a tone to your posts dont you?

    You mean there’s a question about it?  :?

    :lol:

    Very well.  I expect you to read this post and comment on it IN DETAIL, Axis.  Because if you do not, I shall taunt you a second time!  You know what, I’m just going to taunt you anyways.  😛  Because it’s fun.  😄

    On round 1, I buy 3 trans, and 2 inf. This give me 4, or 5 if the uk was nice enough to save me one!! I buy another tran on round 2. giving me 5-6 trans. on round 3, i buy an IC in the East Indies. and I have my transports in position to shuttle troops round 5+.

    First, I don’t think you need to build 2 inf with Japan on J1.  I think Japan should build 3 transport 1 tank, but that’s of course with a mainland IC strategy (more at end).  With extra transports, you can pull infantry off the Japanese islands, and an early tank that’s dropped at Burytia can redirect south to French Indochina/India quickly (even if you set up a 2 transport to French Indochina/2 transport to Burytia/Manchuria transport shuck to empty Japan of eight units a turn, that early tank lets you redirect from Burytia to French Indochina without disrupting your transport chain adding critical strength to a vital area, or at least will probably let you tank blitz in northeastern Asia.  Don’t think “it’s just a tank” either; Japan’s early position in Asia is very weak, and a single tank can make a significant difference on the early turns.

    Second, don’t assume UK is stupid.  You should never have a “free” transport at Kwangtung at start of J1; either UK killed it, or UK did something else that the UK considered to be better, and again, you’re not assuming UK is stupid.  So just why does UK leave the Kwangtung transport alone?  Two common reasons; first is unification of UK fleet southwest of Australia, second is Germany failing to take Anglo-Egypt and Indian fleet sailing through the Suez; the first has implications for your Japan game, the second has potentially serious implications for Germany and hence indirectly Japan.

    Third, you’re locking into your strategy for rounds two and three without even considering what the Allies are trying to do and what Germany is trying to do.  This is a really bad idea.  You can make certain predictions and statements about Axis and Allies Revised with accuracy, but saying that an East Indies IC build on Japan turn three is always “right” is NOT one of them.  As you will see.  :? :?

    Pros:
        –    By round 5, i can shuttle 4 land units into India instead of the 3 a mainland IC gives me.
        –    I have an IC safe from bombers and safe from land attacks.
        –    In conjunction with my 6 trans, i have added flexiiblity. I can just use 2 transports to shuttle to india as long as i want too. However, say I want to contend in africa, i can bring two more trans over, and can have four units pumping directly into africa a turn.

    So what I’m seeing here is you can shuttle 4 land units into India if the Allies don’t do anything about it.  You have an IC safe from bombers if the Allies didn’t hardpoint at India/Sinkiang (bomber in India bombs East Indies then lands in India) which is something you haven’t considered which is something you’ll see in tournament games a lot because of the added victory cities, and in normal games whenever you see a KJF.    And you don’t have added flexibility at all.  If you have two transports shuttling from East Indies to India, then where’s your flexibility?  You have to land in India; you don’t want to shuttle anywhere else in the long term.

    As far as I see it, if you’re emptying Japan of eight units every turn, that requires four dedicated transports.  You could say that’s a given; you should have 4 transports at the end of J1 in most circumstances.  You may have 5 Jap transports, but I will leave that position for now, as it requires either Japanese luck or an Allied counterstrat, both of which change the game considerably.

    So if you have four transports required for emptying Japan, then what’s an East Indies industrial complex do for you?  Well, you need two dedicated transports for East Indies, right?  So that means you’re spending 15 IPC for the industrial complex, 16 more IPC (total 31 IPC) for the transports to get 4 ground units (max 2 infantry 2 tanks) to one location, India, and remember that’s 31 IPC that you can’t use for anything else.  Contrast with 30 IPC for two industrial complex that can produce 6 ground units per turn into Asia, and add the flexibility of being able to switch to all-tank production for when you’re making the final push towards Moscow.  Not that I WOULD build two industrial complexes, but you can already see how an East Indies industrial complex comes up short.  Worried about industrial bombing?  Bombing a 3 IPC territory is probably a big waste of a bomber considering how light the Allies are on air to begin with, and if it does prove to be a detriment, you have an antiaircraft gun on Japan that is probably going to be unused, and you can always build another.

    Oh, MAYBE you could say that an industrial complex in East Indies is theoretically better to this point.  But you still have infantry on Caroline, Solomon, Borneo, New Guinea, and 2 on East Indies, and no extra transport capacity to get them off.  Furthermore, with no extra transports, you haven’t taken Australia, you haven’t taken New Zealand, you haven’t taken Madagascar, and you haven’t traded West Canada or Alaska.  Furthermore, your dedicated transports have to be at India, which means that you MUST have Japanese fleet there to protect them.  So what happens if the United States chooses to build a few units in the Pacific?  Then you have to send your battleships east, and how long do two unescorted battleships last against US’s battleship/transport/destroyer/fighters?  But wait, you say, you can pull back?  Even if you retreat as much as you can, if you want to use both Japanese industrial complexes every turn, you must dump from East Indies to French Indochina and Japan to Kwangtung, which hurts Japan’s position, and you’re STILL splitting your fleet.

    Isn’t it FAR more economical to build 6-7 transports, use 4 to empty Japan, and use 2-3 to empty the Japanese islands and attack Allied territory?  But wait, you say, what if the Allies build a Pacific fleet?  Okay, that is a problem, but after J1, you only have 4 transports, you don’t need to build the other 2-3, and even if the Allies switch to a Pacific strategy, you can move transports away from a threat (unlike an IC), you can use transports as naval fodder (unlike an IC), and you’ve already moved all your infantry out from the isolated islands (unlike the early IC plan you list)

    Cons:
        –    I rely on navy to get units to russia. As japan you do anyway, with the land bridge on the mainland, but this bridge is a little more vulnerable.
        –    Its costs 31 ipc to deliver 4 units a turn, versus 15 ipc to deliver 3 units a turn.

    So if you ALREADY see the problems, then WHY do you do it?

    So i guess the conclusion i have to make here to have this approach worthwhile is this: The 16 ipc cost, and setup is worth the extra unit per turn, and added striking power into africa.

    As you mentioned, you need another two transports to offload into Africa every turn from East Indies (2 pick up at East Indies and unload in Africa and 2 come back empty from Africa to East Indies.  Or 2 pick up at drop to India and 2 pick up at India and drop to Africa, but this requires ANOTHER fleet split.)  And isn’t that 47 IPC (4 transports 1 industrial complex) to move 4 units to Africa?  That’s REALLY expensive.

    I dont think the land forces will be reduced if done correctly. Say i build IC r2. then r3 i build 4 units. r4 i land those units in India. My tran shuck hasnt been disrupted until round 4 when i have to go to EI and grab the equipment. ON round 3, i simply take 1 or 2 trans from the mainland, and drop stuff into FIC. I am in position for the EI drop. I sometimes have 1 tran taking australia that i use, thats why i said 1 or 2 trans from mainland.

    So lets compare to an IC in FIC. r2 purchase the IC. rd 3 build units. r4 move to India. So the IC in EI is superior as far as units in Asia. I have 4 units in India round 4, compared to 3 units with the mainland IC. This is why i started looking at this approach. I followed the typical progress of IC in FIC, then one in India. The downside as i said is u have 2 trans dedicated to this shuck. But that may also be a positive at some point in the game, as it give u felxibility and added striking power to Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt

    J1 build 3 transport 2 infantry, moves 1 transport pickup Okinawa infantry plus Japan infantry transport drops to Asia.

    J2 build IC at East Indies 2 transport at Japan, moves 1 transport to Solomons (no pickup/drop), 1 transport to Caroline (no pickup/drop), 1 transport to Phillipines (pickup 2 infantry), then drop to Asia, 1 transport pickup Wake infantry plus Japanese tank and drop both to Asia.

    J3, the Pacific islands are empty, you have six transports, and IPC income will be at 36 soon (it may be already).  You need all of your transports to shuttle units from Japan and East Indies to Asia or other points.  Those six transports cannot be easily redirected, so your flexibility is now limited; this is particularly important for Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia, and Madagscar early, and important for control of Africa and the Suez Canal later.  If you want to increase your flexibility at all, you must now build more transports, but at this time, your income is around 36; building even 1 or 2 transports will force you to build 2-5 less ground units, which negates the advantage of increased production at East Indies.  As already mentioned, you already limit your flexibility by putting an industrial complex at East Indies.

    Isn’t that EXACTLY what I said when I wrote

    Come on, man, an East Indies IC?  Srsly?  So you have another naval point you need to protect, you have four transports shelling out of Japan, another two transports shuttling East Indies, and you already took Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Alaska plus secured Africa?  If you have all that, yeah, blow a wad on an East Indies IC, there’s nothing else to use your transport for.

    but using more words?  How is my explanation any different now except I went into more detail?  You already saw the problems with your plan yourself!



  • @AxisOfEvil:

    Answer me this, what is YOUR approach to the goals you laid out. How many transports do you have, ICs, and where they are located. My typical approach is IC in FIC and IC in India. I think this is common. My alternative is IC in EI and IC in India. So the diff isnt the 15 ipc for the factory, that is the same, the diff lies in the 16 ipc for trans. The plus is an extra unit. Also 2 trans can become very useful for alot of the goals, if not all of them you listed. So if you want to tell me that you think japan having 6 transports is inefficient in getting troops to where they need to be, i will listen. But your post really contributes nothing. “If you have accomplished everything you want to as Japan, then blow a wad on it”.  Useless post.

    What I’m going to do on J2 and J3 depends on what the board looks like.  I’m not going to say “THIS IS TEH ULTIMATE STRATEGIZ” and forecast a plan two turns ahead, because by the time two more turns come around, the board position is going to change a lot.

    How do I know how many transports and ICs I’m going to have and where?  It depends on the board position.  I’m not trying to be secretive, I’m not trying to be coy; I’m very serious, if you ignore the board position, you’re going to get your ass kicked.  I don’t think anyone’s going to dispute that; I don’t think YOU are disputing it.

    My previous post explains why I think J2 East Indies IC (or even J3 East Indies IC) doesn’t work.  It does not go into details about my precise position, because as I always say, you have to consider the board position when you make your move.

    IF Russia didn’t reinforce India on R1, IF Germany took Anglo-Egypt, IF UK didn’t fly its India fighter to join 6 infantry at Burytia after killing the Japanese transport at Kwangtung, IF UK didn’t unify its fleet southwest of Australia - and IF Russia didn’t overextend or get bad dice on R1, and IF so on and so forth (just what does that mean?  Wow, see what I mean, isn’t it really weird when someone says “I’m gonna set forth this strategy”, and doesn’t go into specifics about what’s going on?  Sounds kind of dumb, doesn’t it, “so on and so forth”, you can just take it for granted that everything’s going hunky-dory, and nothing’s unusual, move along, nothing to see here!  But what kind of an explanation of a strategy is that, “and so on and so forth”?!  Okay, here’s my strategy; I win.  How?  Oh, you know, so on and so forth.  God, I must be the greatest strategist EVAR.  Yeah, I know,  :roll:, Bunnies is beating his dead horse again.  What can I say.  It turns me on.  😉)

    But okay.  Let’s say we have “so on and so forth”.  R1 didn’t reinforce India, or go anywhere near it, pulled back from Asian coast.  G1 took Anglo-Egypt.  UK1 scattered the Pacific fleet (which is common THESE days . . . but I digress.)  You build 3 transports 1 tank on J1.

    J2 what would I do and why?

    Well, what’s probably going on?  By this point, did you see a US build of 1 carrier 2 transport or 3 transport 3 tank?  US moved its West Coast battleship plus transport to Mexico, flew fighters to Eastern Canada?  That probably doesn’t mean a damn thing, especially if the US kept its destroyer at Mexico on US1.  If the US reverses on US2 (after J2), they can have a FAT Pacific fleet with battleship, transport, destroyer, 3 fighters, 1 bomber, plus 40 IPC of units, and what did US lose by this?  Nothing.  US aids UK in reclaiming Africa early, UK/US fleet switches to offloading from London to Europe using US units as naval fodder / a little bleed from E. US build.  The Allies don’t worry about Africa - if Germany presses hard into Africa early, Germany CANNOT press hard on Russia at the same time (gives Allies time), Japan can’t press on Africa early, and of course with Allies pressing on Japan, Japan won’t go for Africa late anyways.

    So US STILL isn’t really committed.  So Japan needs to do another general-purpose build that can be used to either press on Asia or later on defend.  What happens if Japan builds an IC?  It’s another point to defend.  How about if Japan builds two more transports for six plus ground units on J2?

    If the Allies continue KGF on US2, then Japan builds an IC J3-5 on the mainland, and can now use four transports to empty Japan while using two transports to empty the islands (with turbo empty Pacific, this plays out a bit differently, but I digress); Japan will now have 11 unit production capacity, and later on can use those two extra transports to grab various Pacific territories plus French Madagascar, and can later on dump four units from India to any of a great number of African territories.  (You produce eight at Japan, of which four go to French Indochina and four to Burytia or Manchuria depending on whether you’re pressing China or Yakut at the time, plus three more probably at French Indochina, leaving you with seven units to push through the southern route - it isn’t enough early, but around J6-7 (depending on board situation) you can bleed out four of those seven units to hit any number of territories in Africa; if the Allies control Africa, they can’t really trade Africa well - Japan should have air in the India/Africa region making trades easy, plus have the flexibility of offloading to five Africa/Middle East territories, which makes Allied holding on Africa d*** near impossible.

    If the Allies switch to KJF on US2, then Japan switches production to infantry and naval/air.

    So what happens if Allies KGF and Japan crosses 33 IPC and starts being able to produce more than 11 units a turn?  Depends on the board situation.  If you built an industrial complex early so you wouldn’t strain your transport infrastructure, you probably didn’t do it at India (if it’s that early, you can’t be sure of securing India).  So either save for an industrial complex at India (14 unit capacity eating minimum 42 IPC a turn for pure infantry, requiring a strong air force and/or extant tank and/or artillery so you have some attack power), start pumping out tanks at Japan and your second IC for the big Moscow push (4 infantry 7 tanks eats 47 IPC a turn, this is if it looks like Russia can successfully be pressed down), or try to grab Caucasus for 15 units per turn production, so Japan can press from south and east while Germany cuts Allied reinforcements from the north (while contesting Africa, if the game looks like a long one) - all this is dependent on board position of course.  The game develops over time, and Japan has to adapt properly.



  • An IC in E Indies puts you in the same boat as USA.

    Your IC is safe so you have to export the war.

    LT


  • Moderator

    I like the idea of the EI IC in theory but in reality as the others have pointed out it just doesn’t seem worth it.  I’ve thought about it a lot and it always comes down to the fact that I can’t justify putting an IC that far away from Russia.

    My view on IC’s is their #1 goal should be to shorten supply lines and second would be number of units placed.  I’d much rather have an IC on Sin or Novo then I would on EI.  I may place two less units but by the time you get the 4 EI units to Sin I’ve placed 4 so it is even.

    I even tend to view a J Sin IC over a J Ind IC.  I get one less unit, but from Sin I can threaten Mos and Cauc and reinforce Kaz or Novo.



  • 😮
    I always pave the roads between the Japan sea and Russia with I.C.s!
      Infantry Carcuses, that is  :-D.
      Really though, FIC, India, and Manchuria are your best bets, and I usually get them all built before I lose the game. Or sometimes win. :roll:
    I like to get the best bang for my buck, so I will eventually be cranking out nothing but tanks, and 9 tanks a turn, within 2 moves to Moscow is the kind of pressure I prefer to put on old Stalin. 😉



  • Well ….  alright bunny. I guess I got what I asked for. Yes, your second post was a novel, and although alot of it said “it depends on what allies do”, and some of it ignored points I made in previous posts, it was much more useful than your first post. You have obviously had much more time to analyse and weigh different approaches to this game than I have, as I first discovered the revised verion in dec of last year, and only recently began to read forums on strategy.

    Im sure others have thought through the entire gambit of an EI IC. This is why i posed the idea to the forum for discussion, as I AM EVALUATING the merit of it. So detailed reasons are very helpful to me, instead of “your idea stinks!!”. First off, Any AandA strat considered always “depends” on what the allies do. That is a given. Id say an US :“KJF” strat is certianly not a time to build an island IC that needs naval support. agreed. UK making a stand in India is not necessarily a deal breaker though. Ur japanese fleet should be in the Indian ocean in this case anyhow, so providing cover is natural. As far as bypassing other island targets, i never stated that this was necessary, in fact i stated i usually hit at least Australia, “dependant on allied position” OF COURSE!

    And once again you compared the EI IC to two mainland IC. When I specifically stated i planned on 1 mainland IC and 1 EI IC. So as far as builds, yes, you are constrained to building at least 2 inf. But a build of 2 inf and 5 tanks doesnt seem too bad. What is funny is at the very same time you chastise me about making asumptions, you make asumptions about what i “always” do. Any Japan strat is dependent on allied position. this I consider a given.

    So reasons why I gave thought to the EI IC was brought up by another poster. I want to contend early and often in africa. So given that assumption, that the allied positon makes it possible for Japan to contend in Africa, is the setup of 1 IC in FIC and 1 IC in india, better than 1 IC EI and 1 IC India? That is what I am evaulating. with the EI IC, in 1 turn i get inf to egypt which can be followed up by tanks from india. But I understand that a dedicated US will out muscle me unless i divert many troops from russia.

    This begs to question, what does an axis player do about the africa problem?

    Lets be careful about yelling at me for what I always do, as I attempted this idea twice in a “game”.  🙂


  • 2007 AAR League

    @AxisOfEvil:

    So as far as builds, yes, you are constrained to building at least 2 inf. But a build of 2 inf and 5 tanks doesnt seem too bad.

    2 inf, 5 arm is a nice build from the IC’s but in order to build that and still fill 4 TP out of Japan with minimum 8 inf, Japan needs to be earning 55 IPC’s. In my opinion, many people make this very mistake, when they are calculating Japanese builds, as well as another mistake I’ll detail later.

    55 IPC’s is hard to come by for Japan. Short of owning Caucasus, it pretty much means that Japan owns all the Pacific IPC’s, Madagascar as well as some other African IPC’s, and either owns or is regularly trading Novosibirsk and Kazakh. That’s endgame kind of money so I never count on it it when I do my build predictions for the majority of Japan’s turns. You could say that you won’t be building 8 units out of Japan to make that 2 inf, 5 arm build happen but, again, that only happens in the endgame when you’re making that final push for Caucasus or Russia. If you aren’t building to max out Japan’s production(in your case 15 units) with infantry first, and then upgrading inf to art or arm second, income permitting, then you are probably doing something wrong.

    The second mistake I mentioned doesn’t have anything specific to do with the E Indies IC in particular but it does factor into all of Japan’s IC’s. I kind of cringe when I see people build their Japanese armor in their forward IC’s and infantry in Japan. Armor will easily catch up to infantry but not the other way around. So if you’re building 2 inf, 5 armor out of the E Indies and FIC IC’s, you’re usually hamstringing yourself. Not always, but usually.

    @AxisOfEvil:

    This begs to question, what does an axis player do about the africa problem?

    Well, you already detailed the biggest obstacle for the Axis in Africa. Generally, the US will muscle you out of Africa. There are things Japan can do to make it costly for the US, but don’t ever count on owning more than a few IPC’s once the US gets rolling. Personally, I like to use the 2 BB’s to bleed them with a landing of 1 inf, and use my other TP’s to either land in IEA, Kenya, or SAF to force them to divert units away from the push toward Caucasus.

    And that is another drawback with the East Indies IC. You can’t do the 1 inf backed up with 2 BB’s landing because it would mean not landing a full TP out of E Indies. You also can’t land in SAF or Kenya because it’s out of range of the TP shuffle. In both of those cases it would require yet another TP to implement. With the East Indies IC, you’re committed to landing 4 units every turn whether you want to or not. If all you want to do is move 1 unit somewhere, you’re SOL unless you spring for another TP for that flexibility.



  • @AxisOfEvil:

    Well ….  alright bunny. I guess I got what I asked for. Yes, your second post was a novel, and although alot of it said “it depends on what allies do”, and some of it ignored points I made in previous posts, it was much more useful than your first post. You have obviously had much more time to analyse and weigh different approaches to this game than I have, as I first discovered the revised verion in dec of last year, and only recently began to read forums on strategy.

    Im sure others have thought through the entire gambit of an EI IC. This is why i posed the idea to the forum for discussion, as I AM EVALUATING the merit of it. So detailed reasons are very helpful to me, instead of “your idea stinks!!”. First off, Any AandA strat considered always “depends” on what the allies do. That is a given. Id say an US :“KJF” strat is certianly not a time to build an island IC that needs naval support. agreed. UK making a stand in India is not necessarily a deal breaker though. Ur japanese fleet should be in the Indian ocean in this case anyhow, so providing cover is natural. As far as bypassing other island targets, i never stated that this was necessary, in fact i stated i usually hit at least Australia, “dependant on allied position” OF COURSE!

    And once again you compared the EI IC to two mainland IC. When I specifically stated i planned on 1 mainland IC and 1 EI IC. So as far as builds, yes, you are constrained to building at least 2 inf. But a build of 2 inf and 5 tanks doesnt seem too bad. What is funny is at the very same time you chastise me about making asumptions, you make asumptions about what i “always” do. Any Japan strat is dependent on allied position. this I consider a given.

    So reasons why I gave thought to the EI IC was brought up by another poster. I want to contend early and often in africa. So given that assumption, that the allied positon makes it possible for Japan to contend in Africa, is the setup of 1 IC in FIC and 1 IC in india, better than 1 IC EI and 1 IC India? That is what I am evaulating. with the EI IC, in 1 turn i get inf to egypt which can be followed up by tanks from india. But I understand that a dedicated US will out muscle me unless i divert many troops from russia.

    This begs to question, what does an axis player do about the africa problem?

    Lets be careful about yelling at me for what I always do, as I attempted this idea twice in a “game”.  🙂

    You didn’t read a thing I wrote.   :roll:

    What a waste of time!

    See, you go and ask for an in-detail explanation.  I give it to you.  Then you totally ignore what the h*** I wrote and say I wrote a lot of stuff I didn’t, and say I didn’t write a lot of stuff I did.

    I don’t blame you though.  I know you’re blonde.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 52
  • 50
  • 21
  • 27
  • 27
  • 2
  • 26
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts