Better to Build one IC or two with Japan?

@Gragor:

A great way to learn is to review games others have played.  You can review the play by forum games here but you will have to load the map utility to get the most of reviewing the play by forum discussion thread.  You can also install tripleA and join games in progress, save the game and then dissect how others play the game.

Okay sounds good. . . . Question what is tripleA?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18278.0

@GCar:

Anyone voting DD as not understood something in naval fights.
Anyone voting bombers as not understood the value of strategic bombing on his killing target (Russia or Germany usually).
For ground units, Art is the call (if no AA guns), but the winner should be in the ships area.
I will have to say Crusers, very close to Battleships, and maybe of subs depending which side you play the most often.

i disagree… Strategic bombing is Valuable considering the OOB rules,  it applies to damage only which reduces deployment capabilities.  however, depending on the game situation, it may be far more beneficial to add 4 Inf. to your forces on either attacking or defending.  especially when you risk your bombers to AA Fire.

Russia Barely has the Money for bombers, Germany is better off with 2 more tanks or 4 Inf., Britain usually needs that money for the navy or complex/units elsewhere, Japan usually needs more naval units or another complex, USA is the only when with the non threatened expendable wealth early on for bombers…   again this does depend on the current game situation, what round, how certain battles go, etc…

but to vote Bombers doesnt mean the player doesnt understand the value… it means he purchases these units less for whatever reason…
 the only other unit i purchase in the quantity i purchase bombers is Battleships, but they are more appealing for obvious reasons and every country (except Russia) has a need for a battleship at some point.

And I’ll have to say that I played about a dozen of games with Axis where my opponent played the double IC strategy, they ALL went the way I said in the previous post (except I usually don’t lose the islands, I’m quite good dealing with naval fights).

@Bunnies:

You do want Jap tanks on the mainland early, but I think it’s best NOT to try to mass early on - the tanks just don’t have enough punching power against a good Russian player to threaten anything worthwhile.  Best use infantry plus air support.  You want a COUPLE tanks, yes, but best concentrate on infantry early; that’s all the more that will be knocking on Moscow’s door when push comes to shove.

I agree. Just like Germany, you’re going to want those infantry right up against Russia for when it really matters, and so you better start early and keep it coming. With the airforce there I don’t get concerned about not having more tanks (1 here and there keeps you ready). The one draw back is that with less tanks, you can’t do as Hobbes recommends and bring more of your airforce to G which is a significant trade-off.

@Bunnies:

1.  Noticed you moved transport from east of Japan to west of Japan.  My preference is to hit Burytia, grabbing an infantry from Wake Island in the process.

Yea, I’d rather hit Bury on J1 too (prevent a build up on SFA). I’ve been cautious with a no destroyer build, because I want to insure that the UK ships on 59 do indeed die, but I think it can still be safely done.

@Bunnies:

You put an IC up in French Indochina on J2.  My generic recommendation is to get 5-6 transports and a second tank in Asia ASAP.  Think, a J2 15 IPC investment results in an additional 3 infantry in French Indochina at the placement (end) phase of J3.  A J2 14 IPC investment results in an additional 4 infantry at any number of places at the combat phase of J3, with the added bonus that many of those infantry are free, having been pulled off the islands.

The J2 IC is two-fold for me. 1) Build the most pressure on the Asian front as rapidly as possible. This is debatable, but I think you’re right that in the short term, I can get more units on the mainland with more transports. 2) I become less vulnerable/set back by a successful “ah, what the heck” attack on my battleships/transports – after all, I’m making an aggressive play to keep my sea fleet minimal. I’m also still able to safely grab units off of Born, Phi, and EI to supplement the mainland.

@Granada:

I have seen used very similar strategy against me. The Germans sunk my med ships with the planes, purchased AC and a tran. Of course, I was not able to sink AC, BB and 2figs as Hobbes suggests but I was still a happy player because what Germany put on water equaled to 7inf and was doomed sooner or later anyway.

And I suggested wrongly. I apologize because I just realized that I completely misread the post and didn’t account for the German carrier. In that situation yeah, G will have a nice fleet that the Allies won’t be able to do much about for some turns.

dump the idea of invading the US. My opinion: focus on Rest and Rebuild OR helping Germany.

Maybe there is a small contradiction here.  Perhaps the rule on page 30 should say “anytime it would otherwise fire”.  Fire is simultaneous, whereas the actual dice rolling is not.

There should be no difference in the cost or function of units in AA50 and AA42.  That way makes it easy for a player seasoned in one version to try out the other.  So far I think we’ve had five A&A theatre scale games, and five different rule sets for subs!  One can get confused sometimes.