IC in China?

Hi black_elk, I will have a look at it today :) Sounds like the strategy I use: Build a huge fighter squadron to protect west-russia, india and china, wherever help is necessary.

@InViriconium:

My standard buy on J1 (assuming all transports are alive) is 1 Transport coupled with some air, usually a fighter or two and remaining IPC on ground units to make sure transports are filled. Fighters just seems like the most flexible unit since it can both work in an all out Asian invasion but also help protect your navy if need be. Having 3 transports in total just seems like the maximum to me. Even with 3 I struggle to maintain all transports fully loaded each turn and also building enough navy to keep a US player who invests heavily into a pacific fleet. Buying more transports and sending them on far away missions like Australia or Africa on early rounds doesn’t seem to be worth it in my opinion. But somehow with this build I struggle to keep enough pressure on north eastern Russia and India if US pressures my navy. Anyone has any bright ideas?

this is precisely why i like the complex on first turn in manchuria.  you no longer need a navy to produce 3 tanks a turn to start harrassing russia and uk (preferably you’d be attacking India first turn and taking it, otherwise ASAP)

you need your navy playing chess in the pacific with the US.  meanwhile any transports would be easy targets for stray allied fighters, so why not remove the risk or need for more navy just to defend them.

japan’s navy WILL die at some point, you can’t afford to replace it, so you have to put pressure on Russia.

Yes

An IC in Egypt can work assuming the opponent is bad. I’m not even sure I would take an IC in Egypt if it were free.
An IC in Egypt doesn’t accomplish much, forces allies to defend it, and costs 15 IPC that could be better spent.

The benefit is marginal. Germany already has a difficult time taking Egypt & Africa without additional naval buys. Often, UK can kill the battleship and transport R1 unless Germany makes a buy. It’s also not fantastic for supporting India since Egypt is only two production and a number of spaces from India. UK can make better use by spending 15 IPC towards 2 fighters.

The risk is great. Germany can threaten Egypt with just 1 carrier buy. Even if Germany never attacks Egypt directly, defending Egypt will divert units from defending India. Japan can easily place naval off FIC. This threat would force UK to defend both India and Egypt. Additionally, the sz off FIC is a great position for Japan to defend even if US commits to the Pacific (KJF).

Okay thanks.  I must’ve seen it in the 1940 Pacific rulebook.

An IC is damaged until repaired, regardless of ownership

Am I the only one that thinks you shouldn’t be able to reinforce on the same turn as you repair the IC? Seems like a “double move” from a sequencing standpoint…like moving land units then letting them load on transport -or- fighters in combat landing in newly captured territories.

We always play house rule that you have to reinforce the next turn, but also adopt SB interceptor rules, so you can dissuade SB runs.  It also curbs just packing in all your units into VC’s with mindless stacks.

@Frontovik:

china can be wiped out in 1 round…

Priority #1 for the Japanese wrt the continent.