Given KGF, where & how many ICs should J build

  • 2007 AAR League

    So, what’s your thoughts on this?

    My take on this is, that of course you’d like two ICs on the mainland. But it means a tradeoff, where you might under-utilize your existing TRNs, and you get less units on the ground (because of the 15 Ipc investment in the IC)

    We are assuming KGF here , so no Allied ICs in are being built in Asia or Africa.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Depends on what England is doing really.

    Are the allies going heavy through Africa?  If so, you might want a Complex in India, Burma and FIC.

    Are the allies trying to do D-Day?  If so, you might be better off with complexes in Kai and Manch so you can pump 13 units through Africa a round (2 from Kai, 3 from Manch, 8 from Japan) instead of 7 units through the south.


  • Jenn did you mean Kiangsu and Manchukuo factories with Japan push though “china” instead of Africa? Because thats a lot of map to cover from the Northern pacific.


  • @Perry:

    So, what’s your thoughts on this?

    My take on this is, that of course you’d like two ICs on the mainland. But it means a tradeoff, where you might under-utilize your existing TRNs, and you get less units on the ground (because of the 15 Ipc investment in the IC)

    We are assuming KGF here , so no Allied ICs in are being built in Asia or Africa.

    You really have to decide what the Axis are doing to counter the KGF move?

    Are they going to reinforce Germany with inf & ftrs?  Japanese planes need to be in range
    Are they going to fight for Africa? Japan/Italy concentrate on Africa, Germany strong (inf)
    Are they pushing as hard as possible on Russia (JTDTM)?

    Once the Axis response has been made, you can then decide where Japan is going to plop down them ICs.


  • Mmmmm… Alaska? Egypt? South Africa? 😄

    Or you could not need one if USA gets more careless and Japan sneaks to San Francisco  :roll:


  • well id always always always build an IC in FIC J1 except maybe a 7inf stack in Bury which would prolly mean 2 trannies. FIC is nice  because its flexible. Manchuria  isnt flexible as u eg. build in same sz as japan.

    then if u see the allied go KGF, id build an IC in east indies. since the first thing to do in a KGF is take back africa, eastindies really is nice since you can now shift 6 units ( 4 east indies 2 FIC) with only one more trannie to egypt. or TRJ or EAF. whatever.  i dont like the burma IC because i think its better in India once you are strong enough there.


  • It’s foolish not to build an IC in Manchuria seeing that it’s Chinese land and if it were ever conquered it could not be used.  This is yet another huge advantage for the Japanese.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The correct answer is 4. Usually in this order:

    1. FIC (J1)
    2. Bur or Man (J2) Bur has priority
    3. Man or Bur (J3)
    4. Ind (J4)

    Japan’s income almost always outstrips it’s capacity to build units so building more than 1 or 2 TP’s is wasteful. Plus, it can easily afford 4 IC’s and still keep it’s production capacity running at maximum.

    You always want to get those IC’s in Southeast Asia running quickly because it is so hard to get units down there reliably without taking a lot of TP’s out of action when you should be using your TP’s exclusively to take Pacific IPC’s and conquer China as soon as possible in the early rounds.


  • my build is always

    2 trn turn 1

    1 ic turn 2 in sumatra

    then depending on what is going on

    But i think you definitley want an I.C in india no later than turn 4

    maybe an I.C in fic on turn 3

    I think building in fic or manchuria turn 1 is bad

    assuming they are going kgf

    italy is gonna be poor and so is germany so you gotta get britian and america as poor as possible.

    i attack the british No by going 3 trn into austraila turn 2 and takign hawaii and wake.

    Personally i alwasy build turn 2 I.C sumatra

    the best way to attack russia is through the caucus

    and 2inf 2 art a turn in sum makes it to caucus quicker than FIC

    it’s also better for fighting in africa

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I meant Kaingsu, just easier to type Kai.

    I don’t think 4 factories is needed.  That’s a bloodly aweful lot of manufacturing and while Japan is rich, they are not that rich, IMHO. (Then again, I like to build fighters every once in a while, and it would be nice to afford a tank each round instead of 100% infantry!)

    Three is where I think you are fine.

    India, Burma, Fic.  That’s 7 Units going along the south augmented by 8 Units from Japan going along the North or Central routes.  15 Units is a lot of units.  15 Infantry is 45 IPC, 15 Armor is 75 IPC.  A combination of the two is probably all you can afford as Japan.  Less if America’s coming for you in the Pacific.


  • I like the SUM IC.  4 Units a turn that can be transported to IND or PER

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I might be inclined to agree with you, Bongaroo, but I have seen too many successful American campaigns in the Pacific so far.  If America’s hitting you in the Pacific, it is to easy to get your forces either tied up defending Sumatra or have reinforcements built in Sumatra get cut off from the mainland.

    Also, it’s my personal opinion, that an Industrial Complex is supposed to get units onto the mainland faster, not to build them on an island and transport them.  That’s why I don’t support a British complex in Australia or a Japanese one on the islands.  (Though, for America, i will build them on islands because it’s a way to reinforce the navy faster and stage landings without having to transport units across the Pacific.)

    Now, that’s just my opinion on the matter, it’s not to say one is correct and one is incorrect.


  • @Cmdr:

    I might be inclined to agree with you, Bongaroo, but I have seen too many successful American campaigns in the Pacific so far.  If America’s hitting you in the Pacific, it is to easy to get your forces either tied up defending Sumatra or have reinforcements built in Sumatra get cut off from the mainland.

    Also, it’s my personal opinion, that an Industrial Complex is supposed to get units onto the mainland faster, not to build them on an island and transport them.  That’s why I don’t support a British complex in Australia or a Japanese one on the islands.  (Though, for America, i will build them on islands because it’s a way to reinforce the navy faster and stage landings without having to transport units across the Pacific.)

    Now, that’s just my opinion on the matter, it’s not to say one is correct and one is incorrect.

    The US coming strong would certainly have me reconsidering the proposition.  One reason I particularly think it is a good placement is you get more units produced for your money.  4 instead of 3 or in the case of FIC 2.

    Another reason I enjoy it is that I have found myself with 2 or more transports in the Indian Ocean area of the board often with nothing to do.  After Australia and India are captured they have a long trip back to Japan to really serve a purpose.

    I’ve also heard people mention they’ve needed somewhere besides SZ62 to place naval units when SZ62 is under threat.

    There certainly are pros and cons to it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, there are always pros and cons.

    Pro:  Russia/England can almost never capture it like they can India, Burma and/or FIC.
    Pro:  4 Units instead of 2 or 3 Units per round

    Con:  You have to spend 14 ICP for Transports to move the units off and you need to protect those transports from attack.


  • @Cmdr:

    I meant Kaingsu, just easier to type Kai.

    It’s Kiangsu, not Kaingsu…

    Most efficient: Ind and Man. + trns ofcourse, what are you going to spend the 60+ IPC’s on otherwise? And if things go really well, a third one in Burma or Egy is always fun  :evil:


  • Usually FIC & IND for sure, and then MAN and/or SUM depending on the game. Almost never KIA unless I’m delayed building MAN.

    I also like SUM because of its capacity and location. It’s not the best for gnd units because of the need for transports, but it’s very useful for popping out aircraft and ships when you need them.


  • i always build sumatra

    these are the reasons

    it’s 2 full boatloads that are close to africa and straight into india

    you get them 1 turn faster than FIC

    This topic was assuming KGF so assuming KGF sumatra is always better.

    Vs an american fleet

    It’s still great you get to build fleet where you need it if he goes south.

    It’s easy to defend

    it means your slower on the mainland with an american gunning for you.

    but who cares

    if no america going to italy or germany

    then germany should be able to hold off britian and russia.

    Btw you should be able to win the fleet battle too

    you earn 60 ish

    he earns max 48$

    that means you put an extra 2 ss a turn onto the board.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Interesting discussion.  From the map, it’s clear that India is the best possible factory for Japan.  So when do you like to build there?  Turn 4 maybe?

    I find a Turn 2 build in Sumatra very tempting for reasons already described above.  But Sumatra will require 2 transports (not too much of a problem given that Japan starts with 5).

    Cmmdr Jen makes some good points above about the problems with an island factory….so it’s hard to tell whether Manchuria or Sumatra is the better choice.

    I would think those 3 would be the max and Japan should be gunning for Cauc as its 3rd or 4th factory.


  • Keep in mind that SUM can be used for naval and acft builds…. no transports needed.

Suggested Topics

  • 151
  • 75
  • 43
  • 64
  • 29
  • 91
  • 17
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts