Also ignoring China and letting them liberate Kiangsu or Manchuria will negate a Japanese National Objective. It takes almost no effort of Japan’s part to eliminate China. Manchuria and Kiangsu are also great for Japanese ICs. They are on the mainland so they do not require a navy to service them. They also can only be liberated by the Allies, never captured. This means should you loose them, they can not be used to produce units that will be used against you.
Also consider that Chinese infantry are “free” any other Allied unit in that area had to be bought and brought there. Which is a bit easier said than done. I see no reason not to stomp China flat from the get go.
my strategy only really helps the Russians if you’re not using NO’s it can buy be pretty effective if the Russians and Brits work well in concert and if you own the Baltic.I know some people send fighters but your basically shelling out 1/3 of your income on 1 unit that is probably gonna die. What I do is buy 2 inf 1 art and 1 tank which is a fairly powerful force for less than the cost of 2 fighters.
If each victory city is given an IC by default that is 9 additional factories.
Japan at 2 in Kiangsu
America at 2 in Philippines (to Japan in the first round) and 1 in Hawaii (target for Japan)
Britain at 2 in Australia, 1 in Kwangtung (to Japan in the first round), 3 in India (target for Japan) 3 in Eastern Canada
Germany at 6 in France, 3 in Poland (targets for UK/US and UK/US/Russia respectively?)
So far that’s 14 starting production to Axis (if you count what Japan can take in the first round), and 10 to Allies.
That’s 18 factories just on the VCs alone, but you’d still have what, like another 5 factories left over to try and balance against that?
The most significant change from the introduction of the 9 VC factories suggested above seems to be in India and France. But these might be fun in developing a KJF game, or for German Atlantic/Med action. Poland could allow for more aggressive move against Russia, whereas France allows for more aggressive moves against England or Africa. The next biggest change, perhaps even more significant, would be the situation around Japan.
If the Japanese starting factories were concentrated on Kiangsu (VC Shanghai), Kwangtung (VC Hong Kong) and Philippines (VC Manila), Japan’s whole orientation is shifted towards the American thrust. These make sound IC choices over Manchuria, East Indies and Borneo. Those last 3 are all rich in IPCs already, representing the raw materials, but focusing the actual production facilities on Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Philippines is probably more interesting for gameplay, and makes sense historically. Philippines was targeted because of the large bases there. Hong Kong was also targeted as a base of potential British resistance to Japanese designs on the Pacific, and Kiangsu represents all the major areas of activity in the Chinese war since 1937. So it makes sense for Japan to have these territories in their immediate objectives, and also to mark their importance with factory units. This combined with the target VC factories in Hawaii, India, and Australia, and you instantly have a game that is geared much more towards Pacific conflict.
The question from there is where to put any remaining factories. I count 23 total factory sculpts in my box. You guys have the same or is it 24 and I just misplaced one? 🙂
Anyway, starting VC factories seem like the way to do it, then fix the remaining production where it does the most good on balance. I think you have to fix the production at some number and then not allow additional production to be purchased for this to succeed. Otherwise you end up with that dreaded factory in East Indies that makes the Japanese defense so easy to lock down and allows for a broad launch across the whole bottom of the board. This distribution of factories at VCs would remove the Japanese tank drop factory in Manchuria, but would still allow similar production, just spread out across territories that are somewhat more challenging to defend. Kiangsu, Kwangtung, and Philippines would require more fleet actions and forward coverage to use. They create interesting power projection points, but without allowing such massive drops into south asia. I think it would be superior for the gameplay, over the traditional locations for additional Japanese production, and it forces recognition of all the VCs. Highlights VCs in terms of the actual gameplay, and not just as some extra aside. I think it might work
With the remaining 5 ICs, I suggest the 3 Russian territories Archangel, Kazakh, or Novosibirsk just for the blocking potential mentioned above, and to give the Russians some light early flexibility in the placement of infantry, artillery or tanks.) The other factories I suggest going to Egypt and Alaska, to counterbalance against the starting production advantage of Germany, and the production that can potentially be seized by Japan. Egypt gives another Axis target that Britain must defend (splitting their purchases across a longer line, but also giving them the potential to project earlier), while Alaska can serve as a target of opportunity for Japan, or as a potential spring board the Americans. An alternative to Egypt might be South Africa, if Allies prove to weak to hold the line, or if there are in fact a total of 24 sculpts rather than 23 you could do both haha.
With 18 down on all VCs where would you put the extra sculpts still remaining?
For this to work, I think it makes sense for China to be under normal US control, to prevent the weirdness of starting factories in Chinese territories. To me this has long been the most sound fix for the China problem anyway, to just consider them US controlled like on all previous gameboards. In fact I think I will make a separate post on the China subject right now.
Just as other ships may, submarines may also move out of a sea zone where they begin their turn with enemy ships, even destroyers. The destroyer doesn’t stop the sub’s movement, as the sub didn’t enter the sea zone - it started off there.