J1 Two IC Build

@cyan:

@Cobert:

@cyan:

other option waas without the bid because you said no bid before the longer 2trn,2tanks and 1 art bid was for without a bid. 2x8+2x5+4+30. the 2trn, 1ic was for with the bid. 16+15=31

I see I see.

I still like to build 3 transports or 2 and a sub (depends on kwangtung transport), since I like having 4 in the water by turn 2.

misssed m point, why do you need a sub  J1?

A sub purchase on J1 is a bad idea.  If the US evacuates the pacific you have spent 8 IPC on a unit that is worthless.  Better to wait until the US moves so you can see whether they are going to contest the pacific.

Japan’s navy could help in the Mediterranean though, so that sub could still be of use.

@froodster:

Japan’s navy could help in the Mediterranean though, so that sub could still be of use.

It will be many turns before japan could or should be in the Med, that sub would have been far more useful as a transport.

Just saying it’s not a total write-off.

I think I like the 1 IC 2 TRN build (or just 1 TRN if the SZ 59 TRN lived). The IC provides quick support to existing land forces (you have 1 less turn you have to look ahead to guess what you’ll need, because units end up on land the end of the turn they’re built, not the turn after. Armor built there will be in Sinkiang the next round while armor built in Japan will still be fresh off the boat in Kwangtung the next turn. A lot can happen in 2 rounds, and suddenly you realize you are stuck with the units you built 2 rounds ago. The IC just allows for more flexible reaction. And you still have the flexibility of a few TRN kicking around to scoot down to FIC or whatever if needed.

My personal preference is to wait until J2 before building an IC.  I like to know the outcome of the China battle and what the US is going to do before I commit 15 IPC to an IC.  A disaster in China can put a newly built IC in Jeapordy, and if the US is going to contest the pacific, I’d rather use the IC money for ships/planes.  Plus additional transports on J1 let’s you quickly move those forces scattered on the Pacific Islands to Asia.

A Japanese IC on round 1 forces you to spend at least 9 IPC’s worth of infantry to keep it running at maximum. And you’re still committed to buying more TP’s to maximize Japan’s production anyway. Somewhere along that line you will lag. Guns, guns and more guns are what Japan wants. And transports first. To move the guns you already have and future guns you build to where you want them. You can never go wrong with the 2 IPC’s to Japan in the bid and build 4 transports on Japan 1. Those TP’s will be useful to you throughout the whole game. Clear off all of those free guns off the islands as soon as possible. Then, IC’s later. To build more guns. Hmmm. I’m sensing a pattern in my Japanese strategy. Oh yeah, Baby! Transports and GUNS!!!  Tokyo Expressin’, Mt. Suribachi defendin’, MacArthur “We will return” sayin’, bonzai attackin’, Dr. Suess style GUNS! Big ones, little ones, tall ones, short ones, dog ones, cat ones and even some REALLY BIG FAT ONES! BANG! Heh heh. I love playing the Japanese.

@Jennifer:

in a KJF you want ICs.

I have seen Japan hold all their Round 1 income for Round 2 before.  That was interesting. (they had a 9 IPC bid for infantry in Asia.)

Actually, in a KJF you want transports because they preform multiple roles. The US can’t do KJF alone. They need help in Asia and the UK will tip the Allies hand for KJF. Heavy Russian forces in Asia doesn’t necessarily mean KJF, but if coupled with the UK fortifying India, with or without an IC(with is ideal), and avoids counterattacking Egypt, then a KJF is probable. If you plug an IC into that equation, then you not only are comitted to defending your fleet but also defending the IC. With Japan’s meagre starting income and every IPC in Asia being continually contested, one of them will crack under the pressure and then the other will crack right along with it. Japan just won’t have the cash to defend both reliably. Transports on the other hand, will allow you to land units from Japan and the islands early to secure your foothold in Asia and also provide defense for your fleet against the US.

If I made a feint at Japan in Rus1/UK1 and Japan plopped down 1 or 2(?!) IC’s, I would definitely consider KJF. Especially if the Japanese fleet in sz52 was weak and I had the opportunity to immediately trade half their navy for the US forces available.

A Japan SUB is never a waste…
If it exists, USA has to consider it, whether from their ships entering the MED, or any attempts mid-game to go island hoping.

But more than 1 or 2 Japan SUBs, unless you are in a KJF, is probably (pardon the pun) SUB-optimal, unless it is very late game and you are just killing enemy navy for fun.

Actually, America is perfectly capable of killing of Japan almost unilaterally in MOST cases.

As I’ve said.  With average or better dice, you can lock Japan up with England and Russian units that normally do not move to the German front ANYWAY.  And, assuming Japan went heavily to Hawaii, you can drop their capital fleet shipping to almost 50% right off the bat. (assuming again, you got at least 2 or even 3 hits in SZ 52 with 2 fighters, 1 AC, 1 Submarine, that’s not too much to hope for.  13 punch on R1, 8-11 punch on R2.  vs Destroyer, submarine, battleship, AC, 2 fighters, more is usually not wise since you want SOME aircraft for Asia - normally, or to sink the British fleet scattered around the Pacific.)

So with Japan down 1 BB, 1 AC and 2+ Fighters on USA 1 and with America building a nice fleet in response, you can actually, land lock Japan.  That’s why they need to have ICs in a KJF.  Fleet is nice, but they’re going to be needing submarines, not transports.

Shame you didn;t try that in our game…

You didn’t go heavy enough to Pearl to make it viable, Switch.

Unless America can get a Battleship and a Carrier at Pearl, it’s not worth it.  Well, not unless England held Egypt on R1, Russia got away with a 2 fighter kill in Europe almost unscathed on attack and did decent damage on counter attacks, anyway.

Ah, so I trashed your strat just by Pearl Light…  :-P

I’ve always said that KJF doesn’t really work well in a Pearl Light situation or a pearl heavy that’s so one sided that you have no hope of getting a good retalliation.

It’s situational, not consistent.  Surpised you didn’t remember that, that’s why your build of Destroyer, Submarine on J2 was shocking to me.

Just dealing with the board as I saw it… and had I not built it, you would have come into the Pacific.

$20 IPC made you lose 3 turns.  Good trade for the Axis.

Better would have been 20 IPC in units for Japan because I wasn’t going Pacific anyway.  I only got a Carrier, I want a Carrier AND a Battleship or to have my Carrier to survive to go Pac Strat.

So I bluffed you, and you took it.

I still say the BIGGEST mistake was going Africa.  I always seem to loose games in Africa (if it’s the USA going in, and only except the ONE case when I actually had Brits in Africa instead of Ameircans, and I never lost Egypt and I had an IC there….I won that one.)

The goofy thing about that Jen is that MOST of the games I have lost have been to players using a North Africa Dominance strat…

Go figure…

Oh don’t get me wrong.  I’d still go N. Africa.  But it would be England in Africa and America following up or going into Asia.  Instead of America solo.

@Jennifer:

Actually, America is perfectly capable of killing of Japan almost unilaterally in MOST cases.

As I’ve said.  With average or better dice, you can lock Japan up with England and Russian units that normally do not move to the German front ANYWAY.  And, assuming Japan went heavily to Hawaii, you can drop their capital fleet shipping to almost 50% right off the bat. (assuming again, you got at least 2 or even 3 hits in SZ 52 with 2 fighters, 1 AC, 1 Submarine, that’s not too much to hope for.  13 punch on R1, 8-11 punch on R2.  vs Destroyer, submarine, battleship, AC, 2 fighters, more is usually not wise since you want SOME aircraft for Asia - normally, or to sink the British fleet scattered around the Pacific.)

So with Japan down 1 BB, 1 AC and 2+ Fighters on USA 1 and with America building a nice fleet in response, you can actually, land lock Japan.  That’s why they need to have ICs in a KJF.  Fleet is nice, but they’re going to be needing submarines, not transports.

Your first point is completely false. Japan can easily hold off the US without Allied help in Asia. Japan needs only to strafe the TP’s out from under the US and the US can’t hurt them.

Your second point is equally false. I just can’t see how the Allies can handcuff the japanese in Asia with just the units already there. With a 3 or 4 TP build on round 1, Japan can get the 4 inf from Oki, Wake, and Phil to the mainland and probably even the 3 from Bor and E Ind without exposing them to the enemy. Couple that with the 6 units already in japan and a 4-6 inf, 2 SS/1 CV build every turn and the Japanese will have ground superiority by J2. That doesn’t even include the airforce. Japan  can base their fighters on their CV’s in sz60 and the bomber along the coast and they can be used for dual duty in the Pacific and Asia. And against a sz52 fleet with the UK fighter added, why isn’t Japan bringing the bomber and the 3rd fighter? Who cares about having extra aircraft in Asia. Japan never has to make huge gains in the first round anyway. Their only objectives need to be take China, secure what they already own and destroy the units in sz52. 3 fighters to take China and help take out what’s left of the UK fleet is more than enough. Under threat of massive landings, the Allies in Asia will retreat without the Japanese having to roll a die.

And good luck landlocking the Japanese when they still have 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 bmb, 5 TP’s, and at least 3 fig with the US starting from scratch. Unless they do something crazy like building an IC on J1. Then maybe you can do it.

Japan can’t afford to strafe the Transports.  (Assuming America buys any.)  And why should America buy them until the Jap fleets are completely destroyed?  10 Submarines, 1 Battleship, 2 Destroyers is more then enough to take out a few pesky warships Japan has.  2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, 5 Submarines works just as well too, only with much better defense.  Notice neither of those fleets have transports for you to “strafe” out.

The transports come in around USA 3 or 4 and then just pick off islands or mass troops in SFE.  By this point, if you had chosen a good game to do KJF (and there are some pre-reqs) the Japanese fleet should be destroyed and Japan should be limited to producing ground units in Asian ICs and maybe some naval units or fighter units in Japan herself.  None of which have the range to stop you from collecing islands.

@Jennifer:

Japan can’t afford to strafe the Transports.  (Assuming America buys any.)  And why should America buy them until the Jap fleets are completely destroyed?

Because it is a lot easier to go KJF if you have at least one transport to secure fighter bases.

KJF w/o TRN’s and 6 Japan starting FIGs that are able to attack at will due to island bases all over the place is a beotch for the US, thus you need TRN’s, AND troops for them.