Forbidding ICs…?



  • I was thinking, if Industrial Complexes could not be built, Japan would not ever be able to build troops on the mainland.  That would mean that if America neutralized the Japanese navy, they would pose absolutely no threat to Russia, or the mainland.  That would mean that America has an excellent incentive to chase Japan- blow up a couple boats and Russia is fighting a one front war.

    However, on the flipside, with Britain being across the world from the Pacific, Britain would never get involved with the Pacific (not that it often does now).  That would mean either America neutralizes Japan, saving Russia, or does KGF.  I don’t know which strategy would prove more useful.

    Thoughts on this proposed change?



  • This is an idea I havent heard of too often, might be interesting to try…

    Problem is that Japan can only build 8 units in Tokyo, but I think maybe that if Revised rules changed so that no IC could be build, then
    the maximum build capacity should be reverted back to Classic rules (2nd ed.?) so any power can build as many units as money allows on the original IC’s.

    Or else, UK+Jap would build lots of ftrs+bmrs  :?

    If we apply this rulechange only, forbidden IC, then axis would need higher bids.



  • Allies can with without building any new ICs.  It would be much more difficult for the axis (if not impossible) for the axis to win without any additional IC’s.

    As you pointed out, an Unlimited IC in Tokyo might make this house rule playable.



  • Not sure if even unlimited unit production would help that much for Japan.  A strategy that I have found very useful is kill the Japanese transports as fast as possible with bombers and subs.  Since the Japanese player almost automatically takes transports as fodder when his ships are attacked, it happens pretty quickly.  If he realizes what it going on, it just takes a little longer.



  • Never! UK and USA both need ICs for going KJF! It’s enough bad having KGF 99% of times, we don’t need KGF 100% of times

    And true, Japan also need them badly


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I disagree that USA needs ICs for KJF.  Most of the time, I find ICs built after game start a liability.

    However, that said, I do think that Japan does need to be able to build ICs in Revised due to the limited production capacity of the starting ones.

    Now, if we were to allow an unlimited amount of units to be built in your home territory each round (E. USA, Japan, England, Germany, Russia) then this would be perfectly acceptable.



  • @Cmdr:

    I disagree that USA needs ICs for KJF.  Most of the time, I find ICs built after game start a liability.

    However, that said, I do think that Japan does need to be able to build ICs in Revised due to the limited production capacity of the starting ones.

    Now, if we were to allow an unlimited amount of units to be built in your home territory each round (E. USA, Japan, England, Germany, Russia) then this would be perfectly acceptable.

    Interesting idea, I didn’t think about the limited buildings at the time.  Do you think this would promote USA going for the Pacific to take out transports?  😐


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    You don’t have to provoke me to go Pacific with USA.  It’s my preferred attack plan.

    Honestly, with unlimited building at the capitol, there is no need to have industrial complexes in the game really. (Which is kinda why they got rid of that going from classic to revised I think, I disagree however, unlimited on the capitol rocks really.)

    I’d actually prefer a game where only territories worth 8 or more that start with Industrial complexes get Industrial Complexes and there is unlimited building at them. (Yes, that’s Russia, England, Germany, Japan, W. USA and E. USA.  I know America gets two, but America is also huge and has two major fronts.)



  • @Rakeman:

    Interesting idea, I didn’t think about the limited buildings at the time.  Do you think this would promote USA going for the Pacific to take out transports?

    What would promote US going to the pacific to attack Japan? KJF is an inferior strat, because of several factors of the gameboard.

    Would you pay $1,5 to buy $1? probably not, thats why I almost never see any serious KJF games. Thats what happens if US go all out against Japan instead of Germany. By round 5-6 when US possibly can match Japan at sea and also threaten islands worth some money, the game is already lost for allies.



  • @Cmdr:

    You don’t have to provoke me to go Pacific with USA.  It’s my preferred attack plan.

    Really?  How does that work out for you?



  • @Cmdr:

    I’d actually prefer a game where only territories worth 8 or more that start with Industrial complexes get Industrial Complexes and there is unlimited building at them. (Yes, that’s Russia, England, Germany, Japan, W. USA and E. USA.  I know America gets two, but America is also huge and has two major fronts.)

    No IC at Italy restricted the axis to much, I think.
    And without additional IC you will lose many interesting game variants.



  • Jen:

    USA needs a IC if goes to Pacific. At Borneo or at East Indies, or they will suffer severe logistics. More than that, a IC building boats or inf there is game over for Japan, and game over for axis if Germany is not stacked at West Russia or Caucasus. And Sinkiang IC is not needed, true, but is very handy.

    Subotay:

    KJF is not inferior, It’s just more difficult to master. Check some of my games, soviets can resist far more that 5th or 6th round. In fact, I’m surprised how long can resist USSR only with RAF, indian and chinese support from east and UK/USA token landings at alg and nor. Not an easy fight, but is a fight that allies can win.



  • whats kgf?



  • @italiansarecoming:

    whats kgf?

    When the Allies ignore Japan more or less completely in order to rush Berlin as fast as possible.  Typically Japan will take most of the USSR but now Moscow because the Allies will stack it.  When berlin falls, the Japanese player will likely throw in the towel.



  • not lol dotn wrry i dotn spell as well ty but normally i see that happening i think it sucks when germany gos down japs lose if japs go down 1st axis still have a shot ty for telling me ignoring japs if japs wants beef with usa then usa wont ignore japan lol :mrgreen:


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Rakeman:

    @Cmdr:

    You don’t have to provoke me to go Pacific with USA.  It’s my preferred attack plan.

    Really?  How does that work out for you?

    So far this year my KJF (in AAR no NAs) is 32 wins, 7 losses with one loss on the way so let’s just say 32 Wins / 8 Losses.

    What makes it viable?  Most players do not know how to handle Japan.  They either buy too much navy and Russia ends up owning Manchuria, Kwangtung and French Indo China or they don’t buy enough navy resulting in America owning Borneo/E. Indies and landing 8 ground units a round into French Indo China and complete dominance of the Pacific Ocean.

    What makes many players think KJF is not viable is they don’t know how to build a Navy for America.  It’s not all submarines in hopes you can eventually out dice the Japanese by round 5 or 6.  You really need to think about what you are doing.  You need enough defensive punch that any attack would by at best 50/50 against you and you need enough air power in range that you can exchange fighters for overwhelming punch. (2 Carriers can support 8 fighters if you are stationed correctly.  that’s a LOT of damage potential.)  But surface ships are also needed.  Sure, your theoretical best bang for the buck is the submarine, but in reality, 4 destroyers > 6 submarines, even though they have the same punch.  They both have the same punch, and the same cost, but the submarines have a significantly smaller chance to hit than the destroyers do. (33% vs 50%) and, one would hope that your fleet would also contain at least one or two battleships and one or two carriers.

    Now, I’m not saying don’t buy ANY submarines.  Just that 1 destroyer for every 3-5 submarines is a good bet, IMHO.  Also, 1 transport for every 5 submarines is an absolute must!  What good is a navy with no transports???  (More transports = greater threat to neighboring islands forcing Japan to consider how they would liberate said islands if it came to it.)

    KJF is all about the right mix of equipment placed in the right place.  KGF is all about brute force.  Do you want to be the Surgeon or the Barbarian?



  • And a KJF strat is building ALL units in WUS from rnd 1 (until Japan is taken or surrounded), and moving them towards Japan from sz 55?

    That means that only the starting units in EUS can be used against Germany…!

    I’m not saying I dont believe you won 32 lost 8 games, but we have to define KJF. UK DD attack at sz 59 rnd 1 doesnt make it KJF alone…

    I just wonder why I almost never see the KJF in the lobby, whats makes www.axisandallies.org a suitable place for KJF games?



  • First, z59 attack should be done even in KGF.

    Now, let’s define KJF. I don’t like that acronim, but it’s widely used so it will work. KJF means that you don’t ignore Japan as in KGF. A z55 fleet is needed in all KJF strats, sometimes aided by ind + sin ICs, sometimes only by aus or saf ICs and sometimes the fleet alone. You don’t have to send USA’s Atlantic fleet to Pacific, her place is Atlantic ocean supporting Royal Navy. Your aim with z55 fleet is, as Jen said, taking East Indies or Borneo, putting a IC there and start creating havoc for Japan. As opposed to KGF, Germany is not ignored in KJF, even if UK builds ICs, because some token forces will be landing at alg, nor or kar


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Subotai:

    No.  SZ 55 is not the only location and America is not limited to ONLY attacking Japan.

    1st:  The goal of KJF is two fold.  First:  To eliminate Japan from moving ground units from Japan to Asia.  Once you accomplish this, Japan is dead for all intents and purposes.

    2nd: The goal of KJF is to eventually take Japan itself in hopes of a Victory City win.

    That stated, I have gone KJF successfully building everything in SZ 10.  Trick here is to unload into Africa, securing Africa while building up your navy.  While the Axis believe you are just building a fleet to defend against the Luftwaffe so you can attack North and South, you are really building a seed navy to move into the Pacific. (Which from SZ 22 is one turn away, two turns from invading IPC valued islands.)

    Another method is building in SZ 55 (or SZ 54, everyone forgets SZ 54.)  If you go this route, Japan will be spending a lot more in naval equipment and you’ll in turn have to have less transports and more submarines to counter this.



  • hhmm good thought make japan not biuld naval units by tricking them by biulding them in eastern then western.

    even i know this and if i was japan i would nto see it coming  🙂


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Tis one of the ideas.

    The best part of it, if Japan does counter, you just don’t go invade and you really do run your navy into the Med to tear at the soft belly of Germany.  Win/Win for America and you don’t really need to spend too much on navy. (2 carriers and that’s hardly more than most.  Maybe flesh it out with a couple of submarines which could be considered fodder.)



  • that works but i would throw in a destroyer or 2



  • How do you “support 8 fighters” if “stationed correctly,” may I ask?



  • I think she’s basically saying that, for example, if you have 2 carriers with 4 fighters in one sea zone stationed with your navy, and you send your navy 1 sz away for an attack, you can land those 4 fighters on a nearby land zone that is up to 3 moves away.  This allows you to bring in 4 extra fighters from 3-4 moves away that would normally have nowhere to land but can now land on the freed carriers.  Thus, your 2 carriers allowed 8 fighters to partake in the naval attack.

    It would also work with moving the carriers+fighters 2 sea zones instead of 1, but there would have to be a land zone within 2 moves for the fighters.  And, while generally in that situation you’d be able to station the extra fighters from the land zone if it’s that close, there are times when you can’t and need to extend the range of your extra fighters as in the example above.



  • i think it is the other way around 8 fighters help navies


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

  • 142
  • 20
  • 18
  • 31
  • 31
  • 2
  • 59
  • 32
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

71
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts