JAPAN _ trannies vs. IC

[Jennifer]

Aye aye, I agree.

But, as I mentioned before, you don’t NEED that IC on round 1.  You can be even more effective being short a unit and having more mobility.  Remember, you can always build it on R2 or R3, if you want.

Meanwhile, without the IC England’s bomber is drifting in the wind instead of set up for a free strafing run on your southern IC, America pretty much has to face an entire Japanese aggression force if they decide to go Pac Strat instead of something safer like hitting Germany and Japan is just as mobile and just as hard hitting as if they had the IC.  Only now, they can set it up in a more beneficial location. (ie, if the allies hold the north strong, you can put it in the south.  If the allies are annoying in the south, put it in the middle or the north.)

In this way you force the allies to play on your terms.  Not you on theirs.

[jsp4563]

I like to give Japan $2 of the bid so I can buy 4trn on J1.  The existing trn gets sent south on J1 to either raid the southern islands for troops or attack Australia/NZ on J2/J3.  I will usually build my 1st IC in FIC but no sooner than J2.

[Jennifer]

I like that idea too.  Though isn’t there something better you could do with 32 IPC?  Maybe set up an insurance policy against an American Pac Strat with 3 Transports, 1 Submarine?  Gives you a legup.

[jsp4563]

@Jennifer:

I like that idea too.  Though isn’t there something better you could do with 32 IPC?  Maybe set up an insurance policy against an American Pac Strat with 3 Transports, 1 Submarine?  Gives you a legup.

I like having the 4 trn because it puts in place the infrastructure to max out the Japan IC.  If the US evacuates the Pacific the sub would be worthless, so I don’t buy any until I see what the US is going to do.

[Guest]

Agreed.  No reason to defend against a US threat that is at best 2 turns away, and may not exist at all.

As for maxing out TRN’s… I tend to do that from J2 forward, but get that extra unit to Asia in J2 and J3 as a result of the IC.  I have played too many knock-down drag outs lately to underestimate the power of an extra unit early being put where it is needed…

[Jennifer]

See,I’ve been on the reverse.  I’ve played too many fights over Asia with an Allied navy comming for me, English captures of islands before I can move, India IC, Sink IC and maybe a few russian reinforcements, to willie nillie dump an IC on Asia in R1

[Guest]

But you KNOW before J1 if the Allies are coming heavy to Asia.  You PROBABLY know it on R1, and definitely by UK1 (India is the clincher).

And if the Allies are NOT coming hard on Japan, then a J1 IC/2 TRN purchase is superior to a 4 TRN buy.

But I will agree…if you have a strong UK India presence and/or an IC in India, skipping the IC on J1 is a good idea.  Though I still would not go 4 TRN.  Probably 3 TRN, 1 ART, 1 INF; still giving me 4 TRN for J2 (and enough land units to fill all of them).  I can then land 5 INF, 2 ART, 1 ARM in J2, along with AF and support shots, anywhere along the coast they are needed to counter the Russians or Brits.  THEN I drop my IC on J2 (unless the US is coming hard after a US1 naval buy, then I am buying land units for the TRNs and navy.  But KJF’s are so rare…)

[DarthMaximus]

I think there are things the Allies can do, that won’t reveal a KJF (although it is more of a slow Japan down rather then try to take them out) until after U1-R2.

Russia can still stack Yak, Sin (or Novo), buy 3 inf, 3 arm and attack Wrus and Ukr and I don’t think that gives anything away.

And UK can buy air/inf, counter Egy or stock up fleet around Afr, or try an Indain Ocean unification, which wouldn’t necessarily mean going after Japan.

I think the key becomes how well did G1 go, but more importantly how well did J1 go.  Did Pearl go well?  Do they overextend?  Did they make a bad buy or NCM?  Etc.

At this point the US can look over the board and see if the opportunity is there to go after Japan.

On the trns/IC topic, due to my games lately, I’m really shifing towards a no IC until Rd 2 or later for Japan.  I’ve played too many games with US going Pac (maybe my last 6 out of 7 games) so I like to wait and see the US commit to either the Atlantic or Pac first.

Why?

B/c if US goes Pac then an IC on FIC (or later Ind) is BAD, and I’d perfer a Man IC (or possibly Kwa).

Also, you’ll need trns for fodder and extra movement of troops to threaten landings in possibly Ala/Wcan or Hi, so buying 3 trns is a pretty safe bet on J1 and still allows 8 units to Asia and gives you an extra “useful” ship in your fleet.

[Jennifer]

I really have to wonder what the point is of landing troops in Alaska.  You can’t possibly hold the land.

[Guest]

It can be a nice distraction to the US Shuck… especially if that shuck is poorly executed :-D

It is especially effective when you take both Alaska and WCan on the same turn…  US HAS to counter…

[DarthMaximus]

Depending on how commited Japan is, I think you can threaten the the US pretty good.

Example  (Assume US goes with an Atlantic Focus).

As Japan in rds 1-2, buy trns and inf (kind of a normal play).  You can even get away with a rd 1 IC (on Man).
Set your Japan to Asia Shuck-Schuck via sz 60 to Bury.
Once the US BB hits the Eus sz, then as Japan you are really safe.

Say J3 you unload 8 inf to bury (bought 8 and place on Japan).
Now on J4 you dump 8 inf to Wcan (from Japan) and move the 8 inf from Bury to Sfe.

With wise purchasing you can keep dumping 6-8 units into Canada and still place 3-5 in Aisa (at this point for defense only) to hold your lines at Sin and Yak.

Obviously you won’t be making a run at Moscow, but this can be handy if you deem it impossible to get to Moscow and take anyway.

The problem for the US is, if they didn’t start their inf train from Wus, Japan can squeeze in at Cus or Ecan (or both) and force the US to take them back.

IMO, you play J1-3 fairly conventionally, judge the status at that time and then decide whether you can make a play or not.

As long as you are Shucking from Sz 60 to Bury on J2-3, and placing 4-8 units on Japan, I think the opportunity is there to cause some trouble if the US get sloppy early on.

Edit:

Switch snuck in a post.  But I agree.

[Novosibirsk]

:mrgreen:

Good Things

[jsp4563]

The reason I won’t buy an IC on J1 is because the situation is too fluid.  Russia normally will have stacked 6inf in Bury plus 2inf & possibly a tank in Sink.  Japan has to attack China, Pearl, and destroy the remnants of the UK IO fleet.  I find it risky to commit to an IC before I know the outcome of those battles, especially China which for me always ends up being a bloodbath.

[Jennifer]

But you cannot possibly hold Alaska without utilization of your entire Air Force added to a building of an IC and even then, it’s highly doubtful you can resupply it fast enough to seriously distract America.  Meanwhile, Russia’s giggling herself silly as she grabs Asia and pummels Germany.

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

But you cannot possibly hold Alaska without utilization of your entire Air Force added to a building of an IC and even then, it’s highly doubtful you can resupply it fast enough to seriously distract America.  Meanwhile, Russia’s giggling herself silly as she grabs Asia and pummels Germany.

Holding Alaska/West Canada isn’t the point of hitting Alaska/West Canada at all.  It’s a simple question of logistics.

[Jennifer]

Sounds like a waste of resources that could be headed for Moscow.  Same reason I don’t usually hit Australia, Hawaii (land, not SZ), New Zealand or Madagascar.

[newpaintbrush]

OK, don’t hit Alaska/W. Canada then.

[Novosibirsk]

I believe the game is over when Japan loses its fleet. It is cut off from the mainland, and soon after it is surrounded.  It cannot rebuild ships and loses its islands and income. Its remaining land units are mopped up. I am an advocate for building as many ships as possible for the chewer. It strengthens the depth of the fleet, and allows the fleet to split into smaller task forces when “Opportunity presents itself” as a previous poster mentioned.

You could argue the fact of having 2 IC’s on Asia’s mainland, which should produce enough units to steamroll the allies (accompanied by your initial fleets’ amphibious landings which soon lose their convenience logistically). Adding to this dilemma for the Allies is the fact they need a couple turns to develop and get into the war. So the two IC’s would have to come early.

Flawing this 2 IC Japanese assult are two critical things:

1- These IC’s become targets. By J3 you have them, and by US 3 they should be knocking on the door.

2- All of Japan’s income is spent on units for the mainland. That means extreme minimal purchases for the Japanese Navy, and a weak fleet is a dead fleet for the Japanese. They need to add to the fleet to keep pace with two opposing powers who continue to jockey for the Navy title. So when that big fleet engagement finally happens (and it can sometimes take a while), if Japan does not prevail, then it loses the war.

I do like the Manchuria IC. It seems very safe, and if the homeland is ever threatened, flop the navy right in there to protect both IC’s.

[Guest]

If the US is building fleet heavy, you never build the second IC, at least not until you kill or neutralize the US fleet.

As for the logistics of using TRNs from Japan to support Asia…
INF Wall.  Massive depth of forces and a continuous wave of forces with an ever growing mass at the front that is virtually immune to counter-attack.  Takes a few rounds to set up, but once established, it is a devastating force set for the Allies to deal with, especialy if they have failled to lock Germany down before it reaches maturity around J5…

[Jennifer]

Problem with the Manch IC is you can very soon have 10 Russian Infantry knocking on your door with support from an American and British IC in Sink/India