The core problem: Building IC

[Praetorian]

Its simple really, the ability to build minor and major IC is what, in my opinion, unbalances the game.  The Japanese ability to build minor ICs in a captured Alaska or on the Chinese mainland changes the dynamic too much.  Normally, Japan’s major issue is the need to balance its IC and its needs with the reality of having to build in Japan and transfer any land units to desirable locations.  Its a good challenge for the Japanese player - and it makes transports super important.  Moreover, its a fun dilemma.

However, once Japan builds one of those minor ICs the dynamics change too drastically.  Instead of having a key vulnerability, the ability to create minor ICs allows Japan to circumvent the pressing needs of transports and simply produce whatever land units it needs and whatever point it needs.  The challenge of balancing long term strategy and the transport requirements to fulfill that strategy are not eliminated outright, but severely reduced.  For me, this makes the Japan position a lot less fun.

Does Japan need minor ICs to win the game?  No, not in my opinion.  Thus, I’m thinking for all future games of AAP40 my friends and I play we are considering using one or both of these house rules:

1. Only Japan and ANZAC may build new IC - and then they can only do so in their home provinces (Australia or Japan).

2. Building a new IC takes two turns to come into play from the round in which it is paid for.

Thoughts?

[robbie358]

So I assume that you include Korea in home territories.

I think it’s a sound idea, but further complicates already complicated beyond repair rules.

USA should be able to build a complex in Alaska if it wants.  UK in Hong Kong.  France in Indo-China (for the “Ultimate” game, of course).  ANZAC in Australia (anywhere).  Japan in Korea.  Russia in Siberia.

Manchuria is the question for me.  If the game wants to be historically accurate then Japan should be able to industrialize Manchuko, though it would provide some balance issues.

[robbie358]

Oh, and UK should be able to build in Canada as well (can’t see why they would, especially if Eastern Canada has a complex already, but oh well).

[Praetorian]

@robbie358:

So I assume that you include Korea in home territories.

For my games, probably not.  The measure I use if we could reasonably expect those territories could produce numbers front-line INF.  Even slightly industrialized, I just dont see many of the territories you mention being very productive - especially since they already grant income bonuses to their controlling player.  Granting both income and an IC seems to overvalue places like Korea, Manchuria and Hong Kong.

Plus, adding lots of exceptions complicates matters.  I’d just hold it to Japan and Australia and be done with it (those territories having enough built-in infrastructure to be able to justify an IC).

[dakgoalie38]

I’m thinking that ICs should have their production capacity reduced if not in a home territory (home territories including all starting territories with just your nation’s symbol on it, so it would not include Chinese territories that Japan starts with).  Even having no production ability whatsoever would make sense.  Does it make sense for a nation to build an entire army in a captured territory? No.  It somewhat makes sense to collect IPCs, representing captured resources, but certainly not to build weapons, then train and assemble divisions there.

In my opinion, all captured factories should be out of service, but their damage should me maximized so when recaptured the enemy has to repair the factory to use it.

Also, all capitals should have special rules to allow for major ICs no matter the territory value, so that Australia can build a major IC in New South Wales.

[fanofbond]

In this game we represent eveything with a value and plastic.  There is no differenciating between where and what something is. That would create too much confusion  Most of us can barely understand the political rules. Then if japan couldn’t build an IC in a captured territory yes it would make this game easier for an allied victory in this game but it would make the world edition suffer.  An allied victory in the world edition would be much too easy.

[Gharen]

Why can’t a country capture enemy territory, build infrastructure there, manufacture weapons of war and move training facilities along with staff to the front line to get troops into the fight faster?  I think there is no problem at all with being able to build frontline ICs, cause if they didn’t the game would take way longer than it normally does.  I understand your reason for why more factories can change the games complexity but I think they are needed.  Japan still needs transports to take islands back from the Allies and to get after the US and ANZAC.  Factory on mainland only allows them to deal with China and UK.  I think the game is fine and that both sides can win in this game regardless if Japan buys more factories or not.  It just comes down to buying the correct units and using them effectively to counteract your opponents strategy.  I am hapy to see a different perspective on the building of ICs on foriegn soil.  Good post.

[Autarch]

IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.

[Tralis]

In AA50, AA42, AA:R, and AA:C the best strategy for Japan was always to industrialize mainland Asia. AAP40 is no different…

[Panz3r L3ad3r]

@Praetorian:

Does Japan need minor ICs to win the game?  No, not in my opinion.  Thus, I’m thinking for all future games of AAP40 my friends and I play we are considering using one or both of these house rules:

1. Only Japan and ANZAC may build new IC - and then they can only do so in their home provinces (Australia or Japan).

2. Building a new IC takes two turns to come into play from the round in which it is paid for.

Thoughts?

Just do it, but remember you ar not playng aap40!

You are inventing another game  :lol:
the rules are simple
just apply the rules and try to win with em :) don’t invent other i’m pretty sure you will enjoy the game with the standard rules just think about new strategy to stop the japan industrialization  :-)

[Gravy]

We are now finding it very difficult to beat Japan with a J1 attack and waiting to hit the Philipines until J2.  I have not beaten this yet in about 5 tries as the allies although I have come close.  By taking the Philipines in round 2 with 3 loaded transports from Japan (J1 purchase), Japan can mop up the DEI J3 easily.

All the allies can do is sit and watch, try and build up the US and ANZAC in Queensland and be aggressive with the Ausies.  With just a minor industry in Asia, a good Japanese player can slowly bleed India and build up enough Ships to dominate the sea.

I’m hoping I can beat this as the allies,  not saying the game is unbalanced just yet since I’m sure the play testers have used this strat (i should hope so for a 100.00 game) but it is very tough to beat even whan I build alot of Bombers with the US.  Japan can just keep building ships and use its subs to kill India’s economy.

I might need to be much more aggressive with India and keep a flow of fighters comming in…anyone else using this Japan strat?

[shohoku201]

My view on an IC build for Japan in Asia has changed a few times.  I used to think Japan needs a major IC right on J2.  Later I realized I don’t really pump out 10 units in the IC anyways so maybe a minor would be better option with my transports still moving some troops from Japan.  So, my question is

1. In general, is it in Japan’s favor to a build an IC in Asia and why?
2. If Japan builds an IC in Asia, should it be a minor or a major and why?

[The Fire Knight]

@Gravy:

We are now finding it very difficult to beat Japan with a J1 attack and waiting to hit the Philipines until J2.  I have not beaten this yet in about 5 tries as the allies although I have come close.  By taking the Philipines in round 2 with 3 loaded transports from Japan (J1 purchase), Japan can mop up the DEI J3 easily.

All the allies can do is sit and watch, try and build up the US and ANZAC in Queensland and be aggressive with the Ausies.  With just a minor industry in Asia, a good Japanese player can slowly bleed India and build up enough Ships to dominate the sea.

I’m hoping I can beat this as the allies,  not saying the game is unbalanced just yet since I’m sure the play testers have used this strat (i should hope so for a 100.00 game) but it is very tough to beat even whan I build alot of Bombers with the US.  Japan can just keep building ships and use its subs to kill India’s economy.

I might need to be much more aggressive with India and keep a flow of fighters comming in…anyone else using this Japan strat?

I use this kind of as well, although to a greater extent. One J1 i capture all four chinese places, shan state, french-indochina, phillipines, kwangtung, and celebes. I take all of the DEI (except that worthless one which isn’t part of the bonus) on J2. I’m concerned about balance as well. I’m currently doing a game using this strat and I will take India next turn and I’ve lost maybe 1 fighter, maybe 0 (can’t remember)

[Praetorian]

@shohoku201:

1. In general, is it in Japan’s favor to a build an IC in Asia and why?
2. If Japan builds an IC in Asia, should it be a minor or a major and why?

1. Yes.  It makes it so that Japan is no longer fully dependent on transports.  Better yet, it speeds up the turns in which Japan can get forces to the front in Asia.  Using transports means that it takes 1 turn to get forces from Japan to the mainland - but then that transport will take another 2+ turns to return to Japan, load up, and get those forces into the fight in Asia.  Thats a slow process (but one that I think is necessary to balance the IC and force composition of Japan).  With an IC in mainland you can have 3+ units right into the fight.

2. Minor IC will do.  Japan doesn’t need much in the way of land forces in Asia to win - 3 Armor per turn is more than enough.

[allweneedislove]

@Praetorian:

…Its a good challenge for the Japanese player - and it makes transports super important.  Moreover, its a fun dilemma.

However, once Japan builds one of those minor ICs the dynamics change too drastically.  Instead of having a key vulnerability, the ability to create minor ICs allows Japan to circumvent the pressing needs of transports and simply produce whatever land units it needs and whatever point it needs.  The challenge of balancing long term strategy and the transport requirements to fulfill that strategy are not eliminated outright, but severely reduced.  For me, this makes the Japan position a lot less fun.

Does Japan need minor ICs to win the game?  No, not in my opinion.  Thus, I’m thinking for all future games of AAP40 my friends and I play we are considering using one or both of these house rules:

1. Only Japan and ANZAC may build new IC - and then they can only do so in their home provinces (Australia or Japan).

2. Building a new IC takes two turns to come into play from the round in which it is paid for.

Thoughts?

well said. i also think the japanese logistics dilema is very fun. i also agree that a complex, especially a major complex, ruins the logistics dilema.

however it is annoying to make house rules, as you know that is not the same game that everyone else is playing.

[kaufschtick]

@Autarch:

IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.

Yeah, I agree with the above view, well put.

[Praetorian]

@Autarch:

IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.

Thats a fair rationalization of what IC might represent.  However, I still think it doesn’t cut to the core issue, that with an IC on the mainland, Japan becomes too powerful.  The IC build is pretty much an automatic build at this point with my group (and I assume, others) because it eliminates so many of japan’s logistical problems (and those logistical problems are fun).

I guess a question I still need to answer is if Japan decides not to build an IC on the mainland are they shifting the balance of power too far to the Allies or does it (as I suspect) shift the balance more to the middle?

[Gravy]

Here’s what I’m trying out…12 sided dice from the Bulge game!  Infantry now defend at 5 or under giving them a little more pop on defense. somewhere around 40% hit rate.  Usually hits 1 out of 3, many times will hit twice. I like this in the game because now it will be harder for Japan to take out China and more difficult to retake Islands.

Infantry were hard to take out in the real war, especially on Islands, so this extra pop makes it more realistic.  Japan can no longer send in 1 infantry and 6 planes to take out a chinese territory or Island, now Japan will need to spend more on ground troops rather than ships.

Everything else is relative on the dice.  Bombers and BB hit at 8, Inf attack at 3, ART attack at 5 for more pop, Tanks def at 7 and attack at 7 giving them a little higher percentage as well since they cost 6ipc.  Fighters def 8 att 7.  What I like is now 8 infantry or so will be difficult to take out.  Hey, just throwing it out there for you guys to think about.

[Van_Trump]

If you want to be historically accurate, what if Chinese infantry are cheaper, say 2 ipcs each. They certainly have the population.

I thought about this as a possible game balance when I first saw the dominant Japanese intitial set up.

In that instance Japan probably doesn’t attack the Allies until J3 at the earliest. Getting rid of the Chinese just too important.

[Autarch]

@Praetorian:

@Autarch:

IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.

Thats a fair rationalization of what IC might represent.  However, I still think it doesn’t cut to the core issue, that with an IC on the mainland, Japan becomes too powerful.  The IC build is pretty much an automatic build at this point with my group (and I assume, others) because it eliminates so many of japan’s logistical problems (and those logistical problems are fun).

I guess a question I still need to answer is if Japan decides not to build an IC on the mainland are they shifting the balance of power too far to the Allies or does it (as I suspect) shift the balance more to the middle?

It certainly would make it more difficult for Japan. A major IC in Asia is more than twice as efficient as the same amount spent on transports. If your going to houserule this away, you better do something to (further) hamstring China and the UK/Anzac as well.