Build 2 Japanese ICs round one?

[Sankt Hallvard]

@jsp4563:

So now you advocate a third IC, that’s a lot of ducats on industrial capacity, where are your fighting forces?  In order for Japan to concentrate on a push towards Moscow, their rear areas must be secure, if they have to battle in the pacific they can’t concentrate their forces in Asia.  Remember, Japan MUST expand in Asia to grow their Income, they can’t if they’re bogged down in the Pacific.  The bulk of Russian income is far from the Japanese front lines, if Japan can’t pressure Russia early on Germany is doomed.

If faced with a KJF I certainly wouldn’t buy 3 ICs, what gave you that idea? I advocate 1 IC regardless and more eventually as income allows(which probably means never in a KJF).

I disagree with Germany being doomed if Japan doesn’t make an early push. In a KJF Germany will almost certainly control all of Africa and likely block allied landings in Europe. Japan can settle for holding their original territories and trading the adjacent ones. Most likely India will fall and the russian frontline will be at yakut. Trading sinkiang/china. That’s down 12 and up 8-10. Not counting the possibility to trade islands.

[axis_roll]

@Sankt:

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

Hmmm… many allied players make the decision to GO KJF only when Japan have poor dice or the allies have the hot hand.

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@axis_roll:

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

I agree with KJF being a conditional strategy that can work. But the thing is that if you go for it you need to commit whole-heartedly, anything less is just assigning resources to a sub-optimal area. If you allow Germany to grow and notice that your KJF is failing by good counters or poor dice it’s irreversible. Usually poor Japan dice is a gift for the allies to succeed with the KGF, why risk the advantage for a KJF?

I’ve found I quite often attack a juicy Bury(1-6 inf with small/no chance to counter) rather than take out the pearl fleet. I’m still waiting for someone to exploit that with a KJF. Nix had a go recently but he went for the naval superiority as well. On the other hand CC sent the ships to the atlantic and that became a bigger problem for me than having them sail around in the pacific.

[squirecam]

@axis_roll:

@Sankt:

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

Hmmm… many allied players make the decision to GO KJF only when Japan have poor dice or the allies have the hot hand.

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

To ST: I have been successful at KJF for quite a while. And against skilled tournament opponents.

But AR is certainly correct, IMHO. For the most effective KJF, you need to start and plan USSR 1. Because of this, you will perform certain moves, and not do others. The simplest change is no UKR attack (You need those tanks). But there are others. USSR position on USSR1 is key.

Yes, this gives Germany a clue as to what you are doing. But while you can KJF after Germany has gone, you have lost the ability to take advantage of early Japanese mainland weaknesses by waiting with USSR troops.

What I dont agree with is that it is “less optimal”. Certainly, given tournament conditions, KJF is valuable, but IMHO it is effective in time limited games or to 10-12 VC games.

[What you would like to do is Give USSR/UK the chance for breakthrough, either Manchuria or FIC income. Of course, should USSR take FIC, UK can roll into Kwang behind it.]

As to an IC, off of 30 IPC, UK can spend 11 IPC in India (2 inf/tank) and still have 18-19 IPC to move units through Norway. (3Inf, art, arm).

Squirecam

[squirecam]

@Sankt:

I’ve found I quite often attack a juicy Bury(1-6 inf with small/no chance to counter) rather than take out the pearl fleet. I’m still waiting for someone to exploit that with a KJF. Nix had a go recently but he went for the naval superiority as well. On the other hand CC sent the ships to the atlantic and that became a bigger problem for me than having them sail around in the pacific.

Is this a Bury with Inf only, or with a fighter for protection?

Assume 6 Inf + Fighter is there. You attack it?

Squirecam

[Guest]

Octopus had been a fan of the 2 IC J1 build when he first joined here.  He later revised that to 1 IC on J1 after playing a few folks here.

He viewed 2 IC’s as “sub-optimal” after seeing potnetial counters.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@squirecam:

Is this a Bury with Inf only, or with a fighter for protection?

Assume 6 Inf + Fighter is there. You attack it?

Yes, inf only. With a fighter I’d probably skip it, unless the Kwang trn is still around. But a fig there means there was 1 fig less participating in combat elsewhere. I suppose no Egypt counter giving Germany early access to Africa and a possibility to take India or cut off russian supplies or simply take caucasus.

Don’t forget the bid, say 2 inf ukraine. Any units in cauc or w.russia can be taken out on G1, especially if units are on their way east.

[Quijote]

Some pretty wild arguments out there:

• Someone said you need 12-14 units for a number of turn to make a push on Moscow. Does that mean Japan should capitulate straight away? Assuming a mix of inf and arm, 12 units cost 48 IPCs… which Japan will not have any time soon.

• Someone said Allies will have the entire initial US and UK fleets, plus 2 turns of US naval builds, at the Solomons by turn 3. There is NO WAY I’m letting both the initial UK and initial US Pearl Harbour fleet survive! Even playing defensively with Japan at sea, and not buying new naval units, one of the two initial fleets can be taken out with minimal losses.

I’ll try to sum up what was said:

I initally said 2 ICs on turn 1 is a good strat against both a KGF and a KJF. From what I heard, I understand that:

• Against a KGF, having 2 ICs in Asia as early as possible is fabulous. It allows you to pump out 6 arm per turn, plus use your initial trns (plus maybe one new one) to shuttle 4-6 inf/art.

• Against a KJF, my feeling is that it’s also very promising. It allows you to make a serious stand and at least hold your possessions in Asia. If you are being pressured hard on the mainland, you can use the ICs to produce inf only, which leaves you with at least 15 IPCs per turn to spend on navy. And you don’t need trns to defend Asia, meaning you can use them as cannon fodder, and more importantly, you don;t have to split your navy or move it to awkward places to guard your trns bringing troops to Asia.

All in all, I have still not heard a valid argument against buying 2 ICs on Japan’s turn.  :-D

[Guest]

@Quijote:

All in all, I have still not heard a valid argument against buying 2 ICs on Japan’s turn.  :-D

Then try this one…

If you buy 2 IC’s on J1…

You will only be able to land 2 units to Asia on J1, and 2 more units via TRN on J2.  That leaves you with only the units that survived your J1 attacks to secure your IC’s.  If Russia staged to Bury, that means you ARE losing Manch on R2.  Russia may not hold it, but you WILL lose it.  And UK can stage so as to take FIC on UK2.  Again, they may not hold it, but they WILL take it.

Now, that means at least one of your J1 IC’s has fallen to the enemy.  So you cannot build there in J2.  Even if you liberate it, you can’t build there until J3.  And since you lack TRN’s, your available forces to liberate it are much reduced… you are going to have to pull forces out of China to liberate it.  Meaning USA/USSR can drive back into China and liberate THAT for a turn.

If you build TWO IC’s on J1, you are going to spend 2-3 turns just trying to get where you can build at both of them, and preventign the Allies from building there.  Meanwhile, while you have your AF, etc. tied up providing punch for your VERY small number of mainland units as they try to secure the new IC’s, the US and UK can also play havoc with your fleet.  They can;t kill it, not without investing in Navy, but they can to a lot of damage to it, or force you to retreat to SZ60/61, and possibly get a TRN/Support Ship force loose in the South Pacific to further trash Japan’s income by island hoping.

There, is THAT a good enough reason fo you?

[Quijote]

Now THAT is finally a valid point. I admit that if UK and USSR move agressively on turn 1, the ICs may not be defendable.

Thus, the caveat to this strategy is: It will not be viable unless you can defend both ICs. But since you won’t actually build them until AFTER both the USSR and UK have made their moves, Japan can adjust.

If the UK destroys the Japanese trn in sz 59 and reinforces India, AND USSR stages 6 inf in Bury, and/or moves an arm/ftr into range, then buying 2 ICs is definitely not a good idea.

If, however, only one of the above happens, then you should be able to reinforce the IC that is in danger of being taken, and set yourself up for a succesful Asian campaign from J2 on.

[axis_roll]

@Quijote:

Now THAT is finally a valid point. I admit that if UK and USSR move agressively on turn 1, the ICs may not be defendable.

Thus, the caveat to this strategy is: It will not be viable unless you can defend both ICs. But since you won’t actually build them until AFTER both the USSR and UK have made their moves, Japan can adjust.

If the UK destroys the Japanese trn in sz 59 and reinforces India, AND USSR stages 6 inf in Bury, and/or moves an arm/ftr into range, then buying 2 ICs is definitely not a good idea.

If, however, only one of the above happens, then you should be able to reinforce the IC that is in danger of being taken, and set yourself up for a succesful Asian campaign from J2 on.

You just contradicted yourself.

BEFORE you said against a KJF, two ICs was still good.

Is sounds like you are you reversing your opinion… are you?

If that’s the case, then the two IC buy is a conditional good buy, right?
I can agree against a KGF move, it might be a good move.

I contend 1 IC J1 is enough… get some more transorts to go get those inf from your islands, for expansion purposes (read Australia, new zealand, Africa?  even America pressure).  Another IC won’t accomplish these key aspects to allow maximum Japanese expansion.

[Quijote]

If the initial USSR and UK moves I described form part of a KJF, then yes, I accept that 2 ICs is not a good strategy.

In all other scenarios, I think it would work fine.

[axis_roll]

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

What I dont agree with is that it is “less optimal”. Certainly, given tournament conditions, KJF is valuable, but IMHO it is effective in time limited games or to 10-12 VC games.

Squirecam

I think you’ve missed my point, I said if Germany makes the appropriate counter moves to an initial KJF Russia 1 move, then KJF is less optimal.

I didn’t say KJF is generally less optimal.

[squirecam]

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

What I dont agree with is that it is “less optimal”. Certainly, given tournament conditions, KJF is valuable, but IMHO it is effective in time limited games or to 10-12 VC games.

Squirecam

I think you’ve missed my point, I said if Germany makes the appropriate counter moves to an initial KJF Russia 1 move, then KJF is less optimal.

I agree with this.

Squirecam

[DarthMaximus]

I think it is very possible to “disguise” a KJF all the way up until US 1.

Infact, I now use pretty much the same opening for the Allies (R1 and UK1) then decide on US 1 which route I want to take.

[Quijote]

Possibly, but if you don’t take the Japanese ICs in Manch and FIC with the Russians and/or British in T1, it’ll be a long time before you can seriously threaten them again.

I maintain: If both ICs can be defended throughout T1 (and I admit that’s a big if), they’re great to have against any Allied strategy.

[Quijote]

I meant to say T2 of course.

[squirecam]

@DarthMaximus:

I think it is very possible to “disguise” a KJF all the way up until US 1.

Infact, I now use pretty much the same opening for the Allies (R1 and UK1) then decide on US 1 which route I want to take.

Yes, you can disguise it.

But what AR and I was saying is that to take maximum advantage USSR 2, troops need to be placed in certain areas, which if put there, gives Germany not subtle hints on what you plan to do.

If you dont do these moves, you can still KJF, but it wont be as strong, since your USSR troops are not put in the best spot to exploit a japanese opening.

Squirecam

[squirecam]

AR,

You going to Greg’s spring gathering??

Squirecam

[DarthMaximus]

It is not necessarily about threatening them, I look at it as can Japan fill their production capability.

(assume Japan losses Kwa trn on UK1)

Option 1 - buy 2 ICs earn 36

On J2 they can get 8 units to Aisa (8 units out of a possible 14)
J2 - bought 1 trn, 2 arm, 6 inf

On J3 they get ~10 units to Asia (10 out of 14)
bought ~ 2 arm, 10 inf (need another trn or only get 10 units to Asia out of 14)

J4 buy 3rd trn and troops and you still only top out at 12 units out of 14.

Option 2 - Buy 3 trns

On J2 you get 8 units to Asia ( 8 units out of 8 )
bought 1 IC, 7 inf

On J3 get 10 units to Asia (11 out of 11 with inf from islands)
bought 2 arm, 9 inf (save 3) - (11 units out of 11)

Then buy you second IC on J4 and you can still max out at 11 for 11, then max out at 14 for 14.

I think I did the math right, so from my pov, as Japan you want to max out your current production levels before upgrading with ICs on the mainland.

You already start with an 8 level from Japan, jumping immediately to 14 isn’t beneficial since you can’t fill 14 for quite some time.
that is 42 IPC if you are only building inf, throw in 6 tanks and 4 inf instead and you top out at 10 units.
Why not get 1 IC and 4 trns and top out at 11 and you can now get 6 arm and 5 inf (if that is the rout you go) to Aisa and it only cost you 15 (IC) + 24 (3 other trns) = 39
vs.
30 (2 IC) + 8 (1 trn other) = 38 BUT only 10 units, to get 11 you need another trn, so
30 + 16 = 46.

So it is 39 vs. 38 or
39 vs. 46.

I’ll take the 39 in both cases for the flexability alone.
Plus I like to try and get one Japan IC closer to Moscow when I have secured Asia.