Tried Japan without early IC's - only transports


  • If your German opponents are building IC’s in Africa it’s no wonder their losing! If their losing Eastern Europe in turn 2 means that their going on full defensive in that region from turn 1. That’s a big mistake. Russia can’t be allowed to have forces available to take EU that early! Germany really can’t afford to put more than 2 infantry into Africa per turn for no more than 3 or 4 turns. Western Europe needs to be fortified and the Eastern Front addressed. The US and UK cannot be allowed to take Western Europe ever!
    If Japan isn’t hitting Yakut by turn 2 or 3 (the latest) they are not opening that Northern Front soon enough. If Japan is doing so without sufficient forces to capture it, again they’re doing something wrong.
    Your opponents strategies are not aggressive enough to deal with the threats your hitting them with. Their not looking 2 or 3 turns ahead. If they wan’t to stand a chance against you, they better overhaul their Axis plans quick…


  • germany didnt build an ic in africa, i did (britain). even if they send 2 infantry into africa, they only have like 9 infantry left in Eastern Europe (even less if defending Western as well). With 19 infantry, 2 fighters and 4 tanks from karelia, russia can take up to 8 IPC’s worth of territory on turn 2. Which means 32 IPC 😄


  • I see, Russia isn’t attacking in turn 1. Still sounds like your German enemy isn’t attacking Russia at all and pulling back. That IS suicidal. Also sounds like he’s buying too much armor too soon. German forces need to keep the Ukraine at least 2 turns to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe. Germany must sacrifice their armor to do so, but it forces Russia to take the Ukraine back. Doing so dwindles Russian forces to the point where German infantry can protect EU without it switching hands.
    Sorry I misunderstood your African post. The only way an extended German African venture may work is rather risky. You need to build a carrier in Southern Europe, hold the Med, and take Karelia in turn 1. Taking Karelia in turn 1 is hard enough (using all available forces). Impossible if Russia has 20+ units in Karelia. Of course you have to ignore the British fleet (taboo). If it somehow works you buy time against Russia to do some work in Africa. I haven’t tried this yet, saving it for some future test…


  • Ok. A word to you Japaneese Players who see the axis dieing without anything you can do. You will be able to see they are doing this by Britain’s first turn, as they put everything they have into Africa.

    Hit Russia HARD. Ignore anything to the South, Rush Russia. Make them take their troops away from Germany. Funny many infantry every turn to Manchuria. By Turn 4 start gathering for an assault on Russia. Then, tell your German player to hit Karelia with EVERYTHING they can, especially if a successful allied assault on Germany looks eminent, you can always take it back.

    Make sure you move your survivers of the Pearl Harbor attack to the Atlantic ocean. By the time you are at Russia’s door, time it so your fleet attacks America’s (dont worry about Britain’s) transports. This will buy you time to kill Russia, and for Germany to break out.


  • I see your point, Yanny…BUT, with Japan going full force at Russia, doesn’t that leave their IPC’s rather low. I think Japan can do more damage, with more $$, as long as Germany can survive for as long as possible. I just can’t see forgeting about S. Asia, especially if the UK and the US have IC’s there. If Japan doesn’t clear allied opposition forces in Asia, it will only bite them in the ass!


  • Yanny -I already know that you disagree with the strategy, but it is the way to go. When you build an IC in Asia you are basically handing it over to Japan if your opponent knows what he is doing. Japan is simply far better positioned to fight on the Asian front and the Allies can not afford to take any pressure off of Germany. You don’t seem to realize that the growth rate of Japan is only important relative to the strength of Germany. You see, Japan has to be able to challenge Russia while Germany is still relatively strong. Slowing down Japan at the cost of buying time and strength for Germany is counter productive. The best way to slow down Japan is to go all out after Germany.

    Tanks are clearly the weapon of choice for Japan. They have twice the movement of infantry and three times the attack capabilities. Infantry are primarily a defensive weapon, but armor is far better suited for attacking and rapid expansion -the primary needs for Japan in most games. ICs are simply more cost effective than are transports for Japanese production.


  • Observe. Japan buys two transports. That’s 16 IPCs (one more than an IC). Japan can move as many tanks or double the infantry onto the mainland than if they had an IC there. They also have the option of moving these units onto the mainland where ever it may suit them for that particular turn. This is why I believe that an early coastal IC is completely unnecisarry. It’s not just a matter of being more cost effective (if you call saving a single IPC being cost effective) being more moblie and having the ablity to move more troop plays perhaps an even more significant role in conquering asia.

    [ This Message was edited by: bossk on 2001-12-27 16:16 ]

    [ This Message was edited by: bossk on 2001-12-27 16:17 ]


  • Xeno - Thats exactly what the Allies want. They WANT Japan to take the IPCs, and they want to make it damn hard for them to do that. The whole point of an Asian IC is to Buy time for Russia, not beat Japan on the Mainland. Without them, I could see Japan knocking on Russia in 4 turns in force.
    Tanks without at least double the infantry to screen them are WORTHLESS. I would be the laughing stock of Origins and the Baltimore Gaming Convention if I bought a lot of tanks with Japan. You lose your expensive pieces by taking tanks as casualties. I tend tokeep a 2 tanks to 7 infantry ratio lately.


  • i only buy like 1 or 2 tanks when playing Japan in the game, usually all my IPC’s go to infantry. I think we’ve all seen Japan dieing because it had only fighters to fight russia with 😄. Just be sure you keep a steady supply of infantry coming in.

    And about the factories, i played with allies again today and japan build 3! factories in the first 3 turns. And when turn 4 started, he had only taken far east and china 😄. I think factories are able to maintain a steady supply of infantry, building one should therefore take place on turn 3 or 4 when infantry is running low on the mainland. You can use the transports and battleships to conquer 3 territories a turn in the first few turns, won’t happen with factories.


  • and your absolutely right Yanny, my allied strategy usually leads to a Japanese attack on Moscow which till now has never worked. Most players think they got a chance attacking with 12 tanks and fighters and only 8 infantry. But a russian defence of 17 infantry (must be possible) and 2 fighters can take down all the infantry first throw, then take out all the armor on second.


  • Yanny - As a Japanese player I’ll assume the Allies will buy IC’s in Asia. The Japanese first turn IC in French Indo-China can quickly deal with them while your transported forces in the north hits Russia. I do agree that the Anti-Russian attacks initially are mostly infantry. Seems like you would lose too much time moving against South-East Asia first then swinging north to attack the Russians. It doesn’t seem to make much difference - 1. you hit the Allied IC’s first, Russia second; 2. leave the Allied IC’s alone, attack Russia only, and they lower your attack strength (which takes Japan longer or not at all anyway). To hit both areas at the same time (by turn 2) is the quickest for NP gain. It will make your Russian attacks a little weaker but you still gain ground. The NP boost allows you to keep that ground. I’ll risk ridicule at any convention if it works.
    What I’m not hearing about from anyone is the British threat from Africa. It sounds like it doesn’t exist. This is a major thorn in Japan’s side and takes energy away from the Russian attacks. I do hear about the US transporting to Africa. This can’t be too significant if the US is serious about taking Europe from Germany. Japan’s 1st turn IC purchase (in French Indo-China) 2nd purpose is to deal with this threat or invade Africa. What happens to the Japanese Russian offense when the UK has units pouring into Asia from Africa when all Japan has is transported infantry? Japan loses NP and gets a stalled offense.
    Greensleeves - if your enemy is buying 3 IC’s in the first 3 turns I agree this doesn’t make much economic sense. Japanese NP doesn’t warrant such a purchase really at all. With the 1st turn IC in French Indo-China, I HAVE taken down Russia with the guidelines I have mentioned throughout this thread. It also stalls an advance from Africa or invades it…


  • In my view, a Japan IC is warranted 2nd round. If they wait any longer than that, the allied forces have a good chance of seriously delaying Japan. Think about it! If the allied goal is to only delay Japan, then Japan needs to counter that by being bigger, faster, and more aggressive.
    Yes, transports are good, and so is an IC.
    Japan starts with a foot-hold in Asia…they need to quickly expand as fast as possible for the following reasons… Put an end to allied forces in Asia so they can gain $$ to fuel their assault on Russia in order to save Germany. With that said, I wouldn’t wait longer than round two for an IC. The IC gives Japan that instant presence they need, along with transports it equals over-whelming numbers. By turn three Japan can be pumping out 3 tanks and landing 8 inf. on the mainland.


  • Yanny- I completely disagree with you here. I don’t think the Allied IC stalls Japan much at all, and ultimately you are giving him another IC to build with as well as pulling valued resources out of Europe.

    With three countries defending there is no way Japan can reach Moscow in 4 rounds with anything substantial.

    Tanks are definitely the way to go for Japan. They are far better for attacking and have much better movement capabilities than infantry and they are not expensive. Buying/moving infantry @ 2-1 in favor of infantry for Japan does not make sense because it is not efficient. Sure, if you purchase twice the amount of infantry as you do tanks you can buy more pieces, but the logistics associated with getting them to the main land makes them far more expensive than the 5-3 cost of the pieces themselves would indicate because their are movement cost associated with the extra pieces on top of their purchasing cost (transports or ICs needed). So you may be bringing more pieces into the battle by buying twice the amount of men as you do armor, but not a substantial amount more due to the added manufacturing/transportation costs associated with the extra pieces. And the fact that tanks have three times the attacking capabilities that infantry do more than justifies their cost -a force of mostly tanks that are going to hit three times as often as infantry are is more formittable than a slightly larger force made up largely of weaker infantry. Infantry’s attacking capabilities are pittiful as is their movement ability -they are far better suited for defense.


  • Xeno–I think what Yanny is trying to say, is that the Inf. accompany the armour (or vice versa). The Inf. are there as cheap fodder. Theres going to be loses going into Moscow…so why not lose cheap Inf. rather than build a massive force of tanks that cost 2 more IPC’s, only to lose half. By buyng men and moving them on trans. to the mainland (you can ship 8 men by buying 2 more trans. than Japan originally starts with), you can have a force with spare parts along for the ride, at a cheaper cost. I still beleive in tanks…but just not an all out buying spree of them.


  • Ok, lots of issues to speak out here.

    On Allied ICs - Japan’s forces are not in a good position at the start of the game. They do not have more troops than the combined allies. They only have 2 transports to the Allie’s 1, 3 provinces to the Allie’s 5 (counting Yakut, India, Soviet Far east, China, and Sinkang). This means it will take time to expand into Russia. The point of the ICs is to make that time harder. If you build 5 tanks a turn (this is the ONLY time I warrant buying so many tanks. 5 Tanks a turn will slow the Japaneese Advance considerably, and will easily overwhelm any Mainland Factory.

    On your Indo-China IC. First off, how do you plan to (a) beat 2 ICs with your 1 IC and (b) STILL attack Russia? Enough said.

    On Tanks vs Infantry. I remember the first games I played Axis and Allies. We thought the Axis could never win. Why? Because Germany bought 6 tanks a round, Japan bought 2 ICs and 6 Tanks a round, and Russia Built all Infantry. Russia always won, simple because they had far more bodies than than the Axis.
    You say Infantry suck at attacking. Listen to this math.
    You have 15 IPCs worth of Tanks or Infantry (I use 15 because it is the lowest common denomonator). 3 Tanks attack 5 Infantry. First round, Tanks get 2 hits (I round up) and Infantry get 3 hits. Tanks dead, 3 infantry are left. Attacker loses 15 IPCs, Defender loses 6 IPCS.
    Now, 5 Infantry attack 3 tanks. First round, Infantry get 1 hit, Tanks get 2 (again rounding up). There are now 4 Infantry and 2 tanks left. Next Round, Infantry get 1 hit, Tanks get 1 hit. There are now 3 Infantry, and 1 tank. Next round, both have a 50% chance of hitting. Get my drift?

    Don’t Believe me? Done with the odds calc found on this sight, The attacker has a 15% chance of winning in the former, and a 64% chance of winning in the latter.

    Bottom line, Infantry are better.


  • How do you beat 2 Allied IC’s in Asia to the Japanese one? Why you take the British IC in turn 1. The US might think twice about building theirs. Even if they do, now it’s 2 against 1 IC’s in your favor.
    Throw those odds calculators away! An attack has one purpose - to weaken the enemy. Whether you win the battle, retreat, or lose, as long as you satisfy the purpose it’s a successful attack. Obviously don’t attack if you can’t make the attack have any impact. In the last game I played, Germany was badly weakened by repeated US attacks. Even though the US attack stalled for a turn and Germany regained 2 territories, the damage was done. The very next US attack did Germany in. 1 turn later, they were gone…


  • send the india transport to the french indo-china sea zone, japan can’t use the fleet at the carolines then to attack india.


  • How are you going to take the indian IC with only 2 infantry able to get there (Blocking with my transport)


  • Greensleeves - an excellent block! I’d hit China first in this case. The British transport of course gets destroyed by Japanese aircraft. This eliminates its’s threat of transporting troops also. The next Japanese attack will depend on if the US builds they’re IC or not. At this point (Japan turn 2), India has 6 units and an IC and the US may have an IC and 2 units. If the US has the IC, take them out of the picture. Britian then has a choice. Attack to gain ground and thin themselves out or hold back with 9 units in their next attack. If the US doesn’t have an IC, you’ll have to determine the best attack depending on Japan’s available forces. If hitting India at this point would appear to have no useful result, attack Sinkiang anyway. Either way, by the end of turn 4 Japan will have those territories. Allies, was the expense on the IC’s delaying Japan 1 turn worth it???
    Yanny - use the French Indo-China fighter to take it out. Japan still has 4 infantry and 2 aircraft to attack with. If the odds are still not to your liking, again destroy the British transport and take China…


  • Read your turn order. A transport cannot get to india if a transport is blocking it in French indochina. It can in Noncombat movement, but I dont think that what you want to do.

    Now think about it. By the end of turn 2, the allies have 5 tanks on the mainland, plus 4 infantry and 1 fighter (I assume Japan took China). Another 5 tanks a turn can last for at least 8 turns, against an experienced infantry push. It can even overwhelm the mainland if Japan is relying on an industrial complex.

    [ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2001-12-29 07:41 ]


  • On 2001-12-28 16:52, Major_Damage wrote:
    Xeno–I think what Yanny is trying to say, is that the Inf. accompany the armour (or vice versa). The Inf. are there as cheap fodder. Theres going to be loses going into Moscow…so why not lose cheap Inf. rather than build a massive force of tanks that cost 2 more IPC’s, only to lose half. By buyng men and moving them on trans. to the mainland (you can ship 8 men by buying 2 more trans. than Japan originally starts with), you can have a force with spare parts along for the ride, at a cheaper cost. I still beleive in tanks…but just not an all out buying spree of them.

    I fully understand the bennefit of using infantry as cannon fodder in combat and am not entirely against their use in this situation. However there are a few problems here. If I place infantry in Japan’s capital and begin transporting them the following round, it will take a full 5 rounds to deploy such infantry. That means that if I attack Moscow in round x, I will only be able to attack moscow with infantry that were created a full 5 rounds earlier. Tanks placed in ICs on the Asian mainland can get there two rounds quicker. What this means is that if I attack Moscow with a force of tanks rather than one made up mostly of infantry, the tank force will not necessarily be much smaller than the infantry force because my tanks can get there quicker, so when I hit it I will be hitting it with pieces purchased over a greater number of rounds. Now this problem can not be avoided, but it can be somewhat reduced by purchasing the infantry portion of a force first and the tanks in later rounds, but this will result in the slower expansion of Japan into Asian and Westward because the infantry purchased in early rounds have weak movement capabilities.

    I am sure you have heard the expression “the best defense is a strong offense”. This is often true in A&A. If I kill an enemy piece in round 1, that piece will get only one chance to counter attack. A piece killed in round two will get two chances to counter and so one. The point is that the quicker I kill my enemy the fewer chances he gets to inflict casulties against me. And tanks have three times the attack capabilities that infantry do. That difference is huge. A force of Tanks is going to cut through the enemy far quicker than one consisting mostly of infantry, and the result will be fewer casulties suffered.

    Japan has two primary objectives: to expand into Asia and Westward as fast as possible, and to take Moscow quickly. Armor has twice the movement capabilities and three times the attacking capabilities that infantry do. Compared to infantry, armor moves twice as fast, they cover twice the land, and they hit three times as hard.

    In Europe where you are always concerned with defense, you have far less territory to cover (your opponent is always right next door), and you are not concerned with rapid expansion over large areas, I agree with you that infantry should make up a good portion of your forces. But for Japan’s purposes, armor is far more ideal.


  • Yanny - re-read my previous post. I understand that the Japanese Phillipine transport can’t make it to India on turn 1 if the UK moves their transport to French Indo-China. In this case, I said I’d attack China instead.
    To demonstrate the effectiveness of the first turn IC in French Indo-China, the last game I played saw the Allies lose India in turn 1 and China AND Sinkiang in turn 2. Turn 1 - 4 infantry and 2 aircraft takes India. 1 fighter destroys UK transport in India (your suggestion). USA retreats all 4 infantry and fighter to Sinkiang to protect their new IC. Japan takes Sinkiang AND China in turn 2. No Allied armor to worry about. Japan is now ahead of schedule thanks to Allied gifts. Japan doesn’t need to buy further IC’s. Germany also holds Africa 3 times as long due to the lose of UK IPC’s needlessly in Asia. Japan re-enforces African defense with minimal forces. Russia falls. Its’s over for the Allies…


  • US needs Russia to support an IC in Sinkiang, i nevertheless never build an IC in Asia when playing Allies. Id rather save the IPC’s to take Germany down as quick as possible. And losing an IC close to Russia is very dangerous.


  • Agreed. It makes more sense to have Britian take back Africa ASAP, defend as best as possible in India, and later have units moving from Africa to Asia to deal with the Japanese…


  • “Slow and Steady wins the race”

    you may have tanks getting to Moscow in 2 turns, but every turn I have 12 infantry on the way. 12 Infantry a turn X 4 turns - 48 Infantry. THATS how I beat russia.

    I know a lot of players who use the No Asian IC playout, and I find it makes for Japan to get too much too fast. Japan can get 16 infantry a turn (8 transports + 48 economy) easily. 16 Infantry a turn can put up one hell of a fight for moscow.
    And 48 economy isnt really that hard without Asian IC (3 for Australia + New Zealand, 2 For Persia and Syria, 4 for China and Sinkang, 3 for India, 10 for Russian Provinces (Yakut, Far easy, Provinces connecting to Russia) can bring you to 45 alone. 3 more is easy to pick up in Africa)

    Thats more than russia and Britain combined are gonna be making, and they still need to deal with Germany.

    Also, what would you do with Japan’s fleet in the Atlantic or Med. Sea by turn 4 or 5? I can see Germany taking back Africa if Japan can get it’s fleet there.

    I posted this before, this site explains the basic strategies I use.
    http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

    Great site. And although I don’t completely agree with him on some points, he has good explanations for all of his strategies.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 27
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
  • 21
  • 10
  • 30
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

39
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts