Building ICs…

Oops, didn’t realize you were planning on building it US 2. US does not go before Japan.

Welcome, theSonalsorises!

No.  UK still controls Malaya.  If Japan captured Malaya, then another Allied power recaptured it while Japan still held India, that power would then control Malaya and could build an IC there.

Dylan the Canadian, I see your question got mixed up in your quote.

@Dylan:

Okay thanks, but 1 more thing do you by upgrade a Minor you need to have a territory with 3 IPC’S like Machuria

Yes, to upgrade a minor IC to a major IC (cost 20 ipc) the territory that the minor IC is on would have to be worth at least 3 ipc (like Manchuria or Korea). You should keep this in mind if you buy a minor IC, and may want to upgrade it later.

One other thing about Manchuria is that it is Chinese, so the allies can’t build an IC there. Japan can build an IC there (must have control), but if the allies (including China) liberate it then the IC is removed from play. Its kinda bitter sweet though, at least your enemies won’t be able to use it against you.

@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.

There are rules that list what happens when a facility becomes inoperable. losing their AA ability isn’t on the list, they still have it.

Hmm, the comments on Malaya are interesting because I had the opposite experience last night playing as J.

I attacked on J2. I built 1 IC on Kiangsu on J2, and built 1 IC on Malaya on J4, upgrading it to a major IC on J5. On J6 i built enough inf, art and trn there to conquer india on J7.

I had to divide my builds between ground and naval units because the US destroyed a big Jap fleet on US2 off Queensland, although they took big losses as well. Since I didn’t had enough inf to finish the Chinese or deal with the UK, I concentrated in starving the UK down to 4 IPCs and taking out India instead of losing too much time dealing with the Chinese.

It really felt that I didn’t had any better option: I had to send (and lose) 2 transports with INF to fortify the Carolines and take Guam (to prevent US bombers from striking out at transports on the Asian coastline). Overall I was a little short on infantry but the moment I built the IC the UK was as good as dead.

@ksmckay:

On page 20 under restricitions on placement it says “You cannot have more than one industrial complex per territory”

D’oh. Must have missed that one then…Sorry. I will try not to read the rulebook drunk anymore  :roll:

I guess Manchuria will be also an option in global game if non-agression pact is not the game