Posts made by Argothair

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

Check out these threads, Protest:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35553.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35930.0

Is there any reason not to tweak the starting setup in Axis & Allies 1942 Second Edition to give the Americans a factory, an infantry, and an AA gun in Sinkiang (the territory in the far northwest of China that’s farthest from the Japanese)?

It’s a neat idea, and it’s fresh. I saw a TV show last week (“World War II in Color”) that had an episode about British commando raids into Norway, Denmark, etc. just to keep Germany nervous. Apparently the Germans overreacted and stationed half a million troops in Norway all through the war, even though there were never any serious Allied invasions plans for Norway between winter 1941 and summer 1945. Some historians think that if Germany had had those troops available in France, they could have contained the D-Day invasion.

Part of why the British commandos could pull off their raids was because they had naval superiority. There weren’t any German commando raids into Britain that I know of. That’s why I’m a little uneasy about the “1 free sea move” thing. If I’ve got five destroyers in a sea zone and you’ve got nothing, can you still slip your commandos right past my boats?

Also, at 6 IPCs, I don’t think commandoes would see much use as marines or as elite infantry – you’d pretty much only buy them if you wanted to repeatedly conduct these fancy raids. Figure they get killed after an average of four raids – so you’re dealing (1d6 - 2) * 4 = 6.6 industrial damage for a cost of 6 IPCs. It’s not very attractive.

One tweak would be to have them deal (d6) industrial damage, but to give each enemy combat boat in the sea zone they move through a chance to detect and kill them (as well as the chance that local defenders detect and kill them).

Here’s how I would do it:

1. Don’t think of the new power as just “Italy.” Instead, think of the new power as “all minor Axis powers.” The starting territories would be Italy, Southern Europe, Algeria, Libya, Rumania/Bulgaria, Finland, French Indo-China Thailand, and Argentina (!). You can actually leave the starting unit setup as is – that will give the new player 2 fighters, a battleship, and a transport to start with, while still leaving Germany and Japan with a bomber and five fighters each.

2. Open the Turkish Straits.

3. Put Italy first in the turn order, e.g., Italy - Russia - Germany - UK - Japan - USA. This is OK because Italy’s not really in position to mess up the Russian starting units too badly.

4. Leave Italy at 3 IPCs, and create a new 2 IPC territory out of neutral “Peru Argentina” that starts out empty, under Italian control, just as Brazil starts out empty and under American control. This will give Italy 14 IPCs at the start of the game – enough to buy a carrier, or a fighter, or a bomber, or a cruiser.

5. It’s OK that Italy has only three production slots, because Italy’s going to want to drop some expensive air/sea units. For example, if on turn one Italy builds 3 infantry and saves 5 IPCs, then on the next turn Italy might have as much as 22 IPCs to spend – which is really easy to do; you could buy a fighter and a bomber, or a transport, a destroyer, and a tank. Having only three production slots doesn’t really cripple the Italian player, and it wouldn’t be realistic anyway for Italy to crank out enormous armies of infantry; Italy’s population just wasn’t that large. If you really want to, you can probably build an Italian factory on turn 2 in Rumania.

I mean, it depends on your playing style. If you’re unwilling to organize a fighting retreat for Russia and the British colonies – if you insist on holding or taking ground on every front from turn 1, or if it’s a dealbreaker for you that Moscow will probably fall on turn 7 or 8 (four hours into the game, usually), then yeah, you need to win in SZ37 and pull radical stunts like building American ICs in both Norway and Sinkiang.

On the other hand, if you’re comfortable with Russian infantry stacks and with a Britain that has a humble income on turns 2-4 while it builds up a marine corps / navy that can start picking up 6+ IPCs / turn in Europe, then I think the game works fine and has lots of strategic possibilities.

I mean, obviously, if you ignore the Chinese front, then Japan will waltz through China, and that weakens Russia. So what? If you ignore the Ukrainian front, then Germany will waltz through Ukraine, and that weakens Russia. What makes the game interesting for the Allies in the opening is that they can’t be everywhere at once, so they have to choose where they’re willing to accept some losses.

I think 6 IPCs is the correct bid for the Allies to keep things balanced, but they certainly don’t have to spend it on an Indian sub if they don’t want to. Infantry in Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Persia, Karelia, Caucasus, Hawaii, Szechuan, and/or Eastern Canada are all perfectly plausible bids.

That’s a fascinating strategy, Simon. I like the idea of the Soviet-American ‘roadblock’ in Yakut combined with the Soviet-American outpost in Siankiang. I could see it working if Japan failed to defeat the Flying Tigers in Szechuan on J1 and Germany got middling-to-poor rolls in both eastern Europe and Egypt on G1.

Otherwise you’re talking about committing over 50 Allied IPCs to hold a region (China) that’s worth 5 IPCs per turn at most. The IC in Sinkiang is 15 IPCs, sending two fighters via Alaska is another 20 IPCs, building 1 inf and 1 art in the Sinkiang factory is 7 IPCs, and loaning 3 Russian infantry to help hold the factory is another 9 IPCs, for a minimum total of 51 IPCs. The price tag goes up if you want any American tanks in China, or if you include the opportunity cost of the Flying Tiger fighter that could otherwise be flown to India or West Russia. It sounds like it would be a lot of fun for all players, but a very inefficient strategy for the Allies.

If I were playing the Axis against that opening, I would totally ignore China and Siberia. I would probably have Japan build a sub and a destroyer to secure the Pacific Ocean (it won’t take much more than that since most of the USA’s early cash is going to China and Siberia), and then spend the rest of my cash blitzing toward India, Egypt, and the Caucasus. The UK will have to choose between invading Europe and defending India – without more help from the US than just a single carrier, they can’t do both. If the UK invades Europe, then Germany can trade France/Norway pretty comfortably and wait for Japan to turn into a monster. If the UK defends India, then Germany can seize Africa, Karelia, and the Caucasus. Russia will be very weak around turn 4-5 because the infantry that starts in Kazakh and Novosibirsk will be late to the front (since they were in Siankiang for 2-3 turns), and the infantry that starts in the Soviet Far East / Yakut / Buryatia will also be late to the front (since they were in Yakut for 2-3 turns).

You will probably pick up the money islands by turn 4 or 5 as the USA, and you might be able to trade Manchuria / Kiangsu after a while, but even with all that I still think you’re down on income because of your expected losses on the mainland.

It’s a good question. I think the two most important things to keep in mind when deciding how to divvy up the USA’s resources are (1) choose one theater in which to try to seize an Axis capital, and (2) have a specific goal in mind for the other theater.

For example, let’s say you are trying to take Berlin. Almost all your troops will have to go into the Atlantic – but you could choose one small goal to try to achieve in the Pacific, like “reinforce Honolulu to keep the victory city,” or “send subs to stop Japan from sending transports around without escorts,” or “keep India in British hands until turn 5,” or even something very modest, like “build enough infantry to protect Alaska and the Western US from a Japanese invasion.” Whatever small goal you choose has to be something you can accomplish for an average of 12 IPCs per turn or less.

Let’s say you are trying to take Tokyo. Almost all your troops will have to go into the Pacific – but you could choose one small goal to try to achieve in the Atlantic, like “liberate North Africa” or “send fighters to guard an early British carrier” or “send fighters to hold West Russia until turn 5.”

If you try to split your resources 50/50, 60/40, or even 67/33, you’re not going to take a capital on either side, and Moscow will still eventually fall. If you’re looking for a game that lets you split your resources evenly as America, I recommend the Anniversary Edition!

Gain 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control at least three of the following territories:
Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, and/or Gibraltar.

You’re right, again. I apologize for the mistake. OK, so even if you control Gibraltar and Morocco, Italy could conceivably collect one of its NOs. That’s important, because it means that if you’re not at least trading France with the UK, then taking Egypt back from Italy is a 9-IPC swing. I would say that in roughly half of your games, you’re going to have an opportunity to retake Egypt a turn or two before you can wisely/safely start trading France, so that’s an important rule that makes fighting for Africa more attractive than I had originally realized.

Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16).  That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.

I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. If you’re saying that Italy can use its Med fleet partly to ferry troops to Africa and partly to attack Russia, well, sure – but then your attack on Africa will be less effective. A full attack on Africa requires the use of at least one transport for at least three turns, so that you can ferry to Egypt, then ferry to Ethiopia, then ferry to South Africa. If you don’t have the transport available, your attack will be slower, and you’ll earn less income from your attack.

I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made.

I mean, possibly, if you are both skillful and lucky about your retreat. You could always get diced defending against an attack that shouldn’t ought to have cost you one of your planes, or you can get diced making an attack supported by planes and then be forced to land your planes (sans supporting infantry) in a territory that’s no longer safe for them. If you try to play it totally safe, you’ll probably be forced to withdraw a turn earlier than you otherwise would, and then you’ll earn less income from your attack on Africa. But, sure, being a wise steward of your planes can reduce the risk of losing them. Perhaps it’s unfair to cost out the planes at the full $20, and something like $15 would be more appropriate.

It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything.  There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.

I certainly find it interesting! I acknowledge that all costs are only crude estimates, but I find that the effort of at least trying to put a numerical price on my tactics helps clarify my thinking. Thank you for helping me do that! As far as original units not ‘costing’ anything, I think that’s a more convincing argument when it comes to underpowered units like cruisers, or ill-placed units like the Australian destroyer. Sometimes a unit is comparatively useless, so any use you manage to put it to is ‘free’ relative to your (near-zero) opportunity cost of leaving it in place. However, the infantry, tanks, and planes that start in Europe (or could easily be evacuated to Europe from north Africa) are nowhere near useless – they’re perfectly useful for the Barbarossa (eastern Europe) campaign, and if you divert them away from Barbarossa campaign, you will feel the burn.

What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa?  A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds.

Well, that’s a fair point, but even if you don’t literally invade France, having extra infantry/transports available with which to threaten an early D-Day still forces Germany to garrison France (and NW Europe, and Italy, and the Baltic States, etc.), and that pulls troops from the eastern front, which allows Russia to make some favorable trades. One set of troops and transports that are focused and stockpiled in London can force Germany to defend four or five territories, which is very efficient for the Allies. Those same troops and transports committed to Africa and spread out across the African territories don’t require any particular German defense other than a token roadblock of 1 inf in Libya followed by 1 inf in Egypt.

My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early.  It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.

That may be. The strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio” strikes me as way more useful than “send a steady stream of units to Africa because you can’t afford to lose it no matter what.” On the forums, I think I see people recommending the “win Africa at all costs” strategy, but maybe I’m just not picking up on the full context.

Thanks for having this debate with me! I am / have been really enjoying it. :-)

I think the problem with cruisers is that their ‘signature’ ability is shore bombardment, and shore bombardment is terrible because you only get one roll and it’s not even preemptive.

Historically, during the 1940s, there weren’t any ships at all that could outfight a modern airplane. The only defense against air attacks was to be out of range of tactical bombers, which is why people started building aircraft carriers, to extend the range of their aircraft. A carrier is somewhat vulnerable to submarines, but not if the carrier is protected by an outlying ring of destroyers. So the ideal fleet is a loaded aircraft carrier with a destroyer escort – in both the A&A game, and in real life.

In ship-to-ship combat, cruisers and battleships were mostly holdovers from World War I, both in terms of naval doctrine and in terms of when the ships were physically constructed. They were of some use as ‘tiebreakers’ in pitched battles between evenly matched groups of carriers, but the tradeoff was something like six top-of-the-line battleships was worth one escort carrier.

That said, heavy boats are pretty useful for supporting amphibious landings. There’s a nice symmetry there – you want CV + Ftr + DD to gain control of the seas, and then you want BB + CA + TN to exploit that control by delivering troops to the shores. I think we should preserve that symmetry and fix cruisers by making shore bombardment better. You should get to roll shore bombardment every round, or shore bombardment should have first strike, or maybe both.

Sure, Axis_Roll, you’re right about the NOs. I could have phrased that better by saying: “If the Allies hold Gibraltar and Morocco, then the Italians will not collect any of their NOs, even if the Axis own the rest of Africa and the rest of the Med.” In other words, if your goal is to cancel the Italian NOs, you don’t actually need to get any deeper into Africa than Gibraltar and Morocco.

So, if the Axis can gain $45 in Africa without committing too many additional units, that is another 15 inf or 9 tanks in Europe.  Pretty solid return.  This necessitates SOME sort of allied response…

I’m not convinced it is a solid return. Look at what the Axis are investing to get control of Africa: you’re tying up the Italian transport and battleship for three turns or so, after which they’ll probably be killed. Let’s be generous and cost that out as only half the price of a transport and battleship: ($7 + $20) / 2 = $13. You’ll probably send about two fighters (one German, one Italian) south to fight and die; that’s another $20. Instead of using the transport to evacuate a Italian inf and tank from Africa (to, e.g., Ukraine) on turn 1, you’ll use it to send a new Italian inf and tank from Europe to Africa; that’s a swing of 2 inf, 2 tnk = $16. So a fairly ordinary African campaign already costs the Axis $49 – more than the $45 they can expect to earn from a decisive African victory.

Insisting that an Allied response is “necessary” begs the question of whether a cost-effective Allied response is possible. Suppose a thief is going to break into your house next week while you’re asleep and steal your $50 television. You might say that the television is worth $50, and that’s too much to just write off as a loss, so some kind of intruder defense system is “necessary.” So what? If the cheapest alarm system costs $80, and you buy the alarm system anyway, then you might be defending your honor or whatever, but you’re not choosing the most effective economic strategy.

I’d argue that the situation in Africa is set up so that neither side can stop the other from making gains without investing more resources than they’ll get back out of a regional victory. Africa is a strange game…the only way to win is not to play.

Another problem w/ KAF is that there’s virtually no way for Germany to help support Japan’s attack on the US. It’s close to impossible for Germany to even get a base in the Western Hemisphere to use for refueling bombers, let alone for building enough infantry to make a dent in the USA’s territorial holdings. As Germany, anything you leave in the Atlantic overnight will be sunk by Britain (Britain can afford to build pure air once it sees a coordinated KAF strategy), and there are zero Western Hemisphere territories within a one turn’s move of the Baltic Sea or the Central Med.

That said, the Alaskan attack by Japan can be a very cost-effective way of draining American resources while Germany is driving toward Moscow or London, because it gives you a way to deploy your extra starting Japanese fighters in the opening. I find that Japan starts with more fighters than I really need in Asia. Sometimes the US player will rely on a tank build in California to sweep you out of Alaska – but then if you manage to trade Western Canada, even at a loss, that buys you another turn of Alaskan production.

I think the “$2 territory means a $4 swing” idea is balanced by the fact that even if you lose an entire continent, you don’t lose it all at once. In other words, let’s say Britain “loses” Africa. Does that mean that on Italy’s first turn, Italy literally sweeps down through Egypt into French West Africa and South Africa? Of course not.

Suppose Britain sends zero reinforcements to Africa, and America temporarily drops off one infantry and one artillery to Morocco on turn 2, which you can do at zero cost with your starting transport, kind of leaving them there to rest on your way to France or Italy or whereever. Suppose Italy unloads two transports (one into Transjordan, then one into Egypt), and Germany unloads one transport (to Egypt). Japan snaps up Madagascar on turn 3 but otherwise minds its own business.

Let’s say the Axis win all their battles effortlessly and steamroll through Africa at maximum speed, leaving a modest garrison in Libya. Here’s how the income might look.

Turn 1 – $5 for Axis (Morocco, Libya, Egypt, TJ), and $10 for Allies (TJ, Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, FEA, FWA, Rhodesia, Madagascar, South Africa)
Turn 2 – $8 for Axis (Morocco, Libya, Egypt, TJ, Sudan, Ethiopia, FEA) and $9 for Allies (Morocco, Ethiopia, FEA, FWA, Congo, Rhodesia, Madagascar, South Africa)
Turn 3 – $11 for Axis (Libya, Egypt, TJ, Sudan, Ethiopia, FEA, FWA, Congo, Rhodesia, Madagascar) and $4 for Allies (Morocco, Rhodesia, South Africa
Turn 4 – $13 for Axis (Libya, Egypt, TJ, Sudan, Ethiopia, FEA, FWA, Congo, Rhodesia, Madagascar, South Africa) and $3 for Allies (South Africa, Morocco)
Turn 5 – $13 for Axis, $1 for Allies (Morocco)

Total income over five turns is $50 for Axis, $27 for Allies.

Now let’s flip the scenario around – suppose the Axis send the same three transports’ worth of forces to Africa, but this time the Allies bid one infantry in Egypt, build factories in South Africa and Brazil, send the entire British air force to Africa, have the Americans launch Operation Torch on turn 1 – basically the Allies just make Africa their absolute top priority. Assume both sides get average dice rolls. Japanese come on turn 3 to snipe Madagascar again.

Turn 1 – $5 for Axis (Morocco, Libya, Egypt, TJ), and $11 for Allies (Morocco, TJ, Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, FEA, FWA, Rhodesia, Madagascar, South Africa)
Turn 2 – $5 for Axis (Libya, Egypt, TJ, Sudan), and $11 for Allies (Morocco, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, FEA, FWA, Rhodesia, Madagascar, South Africa)
Turn 3 – $7 for Axis (Egypt, TJ, Sudan, FEA, Ethiopia, Madagascar), and $10 for Allies (Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Congo, FWA, Rhodesia, South Africa)
Turn 4 – $4 for Axis (TJ, FEA, Ethiopia, Madagascar), and $11 for Allies (Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Congo, FWA, FEA, Rhodesia, South Africa)
Turn 5 – $2 for Axis (Ethiopia, Madagascar) and $12 for Allies (Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, FWA, FEA, Ethiopia, Congo, Rhodesia, South Africa)

Totals this time are $23 for Axis, $55 for Allies.

I think these are fairly extreme scenarios – in most games, making a big investment in Africa would swing Africa a little more slowly or a little less completely.  But even in this extreme scenario, the total swing over 5 turns is 45 IPCs. It’s possible my math is wrong, but I’m pretty confident that you shouldn’t double that figure – that 45-IPC budget already includes the gains you can make as the Allies and the losses you can inflict on the Axis by investing in Africa.

But it really doesn’t take that much to spend 45 IPCs – if you build one factory in South Africa on turn 1 and fill it with 2 tanks on turns 2, 3, and 4, and 5, that’s 15 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 45. If you send any fighters or lose any men during Operation Torch or land any additional transports (let alone start going crazy with a Brazilian IC or a dedicated African shuck-shuck), you’re now over-budget.

I expect people will argue that (1) national objectives help increase the budget, and (2) you can make up any shortfalls in the budget by continuing to hold Africa after turn 5. Here’s my counter-arguments:

Italy’s NOs require it to hold Morocco and Gibraltar. The Anglos can and should rapidly take those territories just as a side effect of establishing Atlantic naval supremacy – you don’t need to be running any particular African campaign to be able and willing to retake those territories. Similarly, Britain’s NOs require it to hold Egypt and Australia and South Africa all at once – if you’re fighting hard in north Africa and also working on some kind of naval buildup in the Atlantic, then you’re going to lose Australia to Japan before you can retake Egypt – if you try to hold Egypt and South Africa and Australia in the opening, you’re going to run out of IPCs for the European campaign, and Germany will turn into a monster.

Income after turn 5 can be useful as a kind of ‘tiebreaker’ to see who would win the game hours and hours down the road if you’re in a tight stalemate, but it’s not going to help you seize a capital. Let’s say Britain is trying to reinforce Moscow with income collected from Africa on turn 6. If you collect it on turn 6, you can build fighters in London on turn 7, move them to Scandinavia on turn 8, and move them to Moscow on turn 9 – after Germany and Japan have already made their turn 9 attacks. So the income you collect on turn 6 is useful to stop a turn-10 German attack on Moscow. 90% of the time, a capital has already fallen before turn 10, and your reinforcements will be too late.

There are obviously exceptions – if Germany holds Africa and the Allies are laying siege to Berlin, then Germany’s African IPCs can help drop infantry right into Berlin. But I think these are pretty rare cases – usually one nation on a team gets rich and another nation on that team has to worry about defending its capital, if for no other reason than that smart players will make a point of focusing on the poorest (and therefore weakest) capital to attack.

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I still think Africa and Siberia are slightly overrated, but I have a much better idea of what everyone else is thinking now.

I see a lot of discussion on this board about both sides’ strategies for how to control Africa – build an IC in Brasil, ferry troops from London to Morocco, build an IC in South Africa, build two Japanese transport fleets so you can set up a chain to east Africa, etc.

Same thing for Siberia – I see talk about how to funnel Japanese troops along three channels at once (Siberia, China, and Burma/India), or how to stack Manchuria to delay a march on Evenki, etc.

That all strikes me as pretty odd, because almost every territory in Africa and Siberia is worth 1 IPC, there aren’t any victory cities there at all, they aren’t especially close to any capitals, and they’re kind of out-of-the-way from any other strategic goals the players might have. I mean, Egypt at least makes some sense; you want access to the Suez Canal and it’s worth 2 IPCs and counts toward a couple of NOs. But why are people fighting over Yakut or the Congo? If your opponent’s foolish enough to send more than a token force into Africa or Siberia, wouldn’t it be wiser to just evacuate your troops from the region and use them somewhere more important?

I’m looking at Norway/Finland/Karelia, and with the NO it’s worth more than all of Africa put together. I’m looking at the Caucasus, and with the NO it’s worth more than all of Siberia put together, including the Urals and Novosibirsk. How come people’s strategies don’t reflect that? What am I missing?

Thanks, guys! I’m glad people are enjoying the topic. Jagula correctly notes that I have been getting the math wrong on the Japanese starting units. Thank you, Jagula! To fix this problem, I have moved all of my math onto a spreadsheet (attached) and started ‘scoring’ on Turn 1 instead of on Turn 2. Also, for added realism, I am now modeling the Japanese economy as collecting 30 IPCs on Turn 1, 32 IPCs on Turn 2, then 34, 36, 38, and then 40 IPCs on Turn 6, and I am scoring the 6th turn of production at a discount rate of 9% instead of ignoring it entirely. Other than that, all the assumptions from the previous post (KGF game, British kill one Japanese starting transport and then retreat, etc.) all still apply.

Anyway, onto Part 2: Factories!

How do Factory Locations Affect the Speed of Your Attack?

The most important benefit to building a Japanese industrial complex (“factory”) is that units built in a factory sitting on the Asian mainland are at least one turn closer to attacking their final targets. If you build an infantry in Tokyo on turn 2, then the earliest you can move it to Yunnan is turn 3, and it won’t reach Burma until turn 4 and India until turn 5. On the other hand, if you build an infantry in a Kiangsu factory on turn 2, then you can move it to Burma on turn 3 and India on turn 4.

We can represent this extra speed mathematically by applying one less “discount rate” to the siege point value of units build in mainland factories. For example, an infantry built on turn 2 in Tokyo will be delivered to the mainland on turn 3, so it’s worth (3) * (1 - 33%) = 2 siege points. An infantry built on turn 2 on the mainland is “delivered” to the mainland on turn 2 itself, so it’s worth a full (3) * (1 - 0%) = 3 siege points. Of course, the one-turn speed advantage is just an average. Your exact speed advantage will depend on where you build your factory.

Where should Japan build Factories?

There are three plausible locations for Japan to build factories in the opening: Manchuria, Kiangsu, and French Indochina Thailand (or “Vietnam” for short). Building a factory on the 4-IPC islands of East Indies or Borneo seems attractive because of their high IPC values, but it’s almost always a trap: if you build a factory on an island, you’re just going to have to build more transports to ship the units you built there off the island. The point is to get units into mainland Asia, and building factories on islands does not accomplish that goal.

Manchuria has the obvious advantage that it lets you build three units per turn. Unfortunately, it’s positioned way too far north to be useful for an assault on India: five territories away. It’s also four territories away from the Caucasus and Moscow. The only thing Manchuria is really convenient to is Siberia, which isn’t worth much: all the 1-IPC territories make lean eating for a hungry Japanese Empire. You might want one tank a turn in Siberia, but after that the units really need to travel south toward the juicier territories. To reflect this, we’ll score two out of the three units built in Manchuria as if they were built in Tokyo, i.e., with no special speed advantage.

Kiangsu, by contrast, is ideally located for all kinds of offensive campaigns: it’s three moves from Moscow, three moves from the Caucasus, and three moves from India. Very nicely balanced, and as an added bonus, once America starts attacking you, you can use a Kiangsu factory to build destroyers in the same sea zone that you use to drop off Tokyo’s infantry in Yunnan – Yunnan and Kiangsu share the same sea zone.

Vietnam is another good choice for a factory site if you plan to attack Britain – it’s two moves from India, four moves from Caucasus, and four moves from Moscow. (In the very early game, two moves from India might be too close for comfort. Don’t make the embarassing mistake of handing Britain a gift-wrapped factory! Even if you recover the factory, you’ll never recover the lost momentum.)

Other Benefits for Japanese Factories?

Other than speed, there are a few other potential benefits for mainland Japanese factories. One is that they increase the total number of units you can build each turn – if you never build or capture a factory, you’re limited to building eight units per turn. Once you run out of ‘free infantry’ to pull from island garrisons, that cap will mean you can’t deliver more than 8 units per turn to the mainland.

Another benefit is that you can (theoretically) build a unit mix that has more than 50% artillery and tanks. This is rarely a good idea, because infantry are so efficient and are needed as cannon fodder to absorb your inevitable casualties. No matter how dominant your army is, you’re going to take a few hits along the way, and you may as well take those hits on cheap infantry units. Still, as you’re gearing up for the final push on India or Moscow, sometimes it’s nice to be able to crank out tanks close to the scene of the action.

Finally, some people think factories offer an implicit defensive benefit, because even if America permanently sinks your fleet (preventing you from using transports as ferries), you can still build troops on the mainland with your factories. In my opinion, this is a pretty thin benefit: yes, an Asian factory can be useful if America attacks you with a fleet of pure submarines or some other extreme tactic, but if America is serious about attacking Japan, then they will usually send along a few loaded transports of their own. The Americans’ initial goal might be to seize the Philippines for a victory city, or Borneo for cash – but if you have a juicy factory sitting in Manchuria, there’s no reason why the Americans can’t take that territory first, and then move on to their original target(s). In any scenario where you fleet is being sunk, you’ll get at most one or two extra rounds of Asian production out of a mainland factory, and then the factory will be a gift for the Americans.

How Many Factories Should Japan Build in a KGF Game? When should they be built?

Sticking with the same assumptions as last time (no significant American threat in the Pacific, 33% discount rate, primary Japanese goal is to conquer India, Caucasus, and Moscow as soon as possible via a land invasion), how many factories should Japan build? None, one, two, more? And should you built them on turn 1, turn 2, or turn 3? There are lots of different combinations here. I don’t have time to test them all, but I’ve tried out a dozen of the most obvious strategies on my spreadsheet, which is attached.

If you want to check my work, or if you want to try out strategies of your own, private message me and I’ll be happy to share my spreadsheet with you (it’s a Google Doc).

Otherwise, my bottom line is that you want to build either three transports with zero factories (61 siege points), four transports with zero factories (62 siege points), two factories followed by one transport (61 siege points), or two transports and a factory followed by a second factory (63 siege points). Any of these strategies are much better than zero transports with zero factories (53 siege points).

Other than making sure to build a reasonable number of transports and factories, the most important factor in getting a high siege score is to make sure any transports and factories you do build get fully utilized each turn. If you build a factory, make sure you can max out its production each turn. Transports and factories will both pay for themselves and yield a small but important profit in just about any quantity or combination you care to build them, but only if you fully utilize them – if you leave them empty, even for one turn, then you probably would have been better off sticking with a smaller supply chain and supplementing your buildswith air power.

What about defense?

In the third and last post of this series, I’ll take a look at how the Japanese supply chain changes when you have to worry about defending against a mid-game American naval invasion. How many transports should you build when you have to save a slot for subs and destroyers? How many factories can you build if you’re going to be focusing on holding east Asia defensively rather than on seizing Moscow? Stay tuned.

Japanese Logistics Tables.pdf

Is there a good reason to leave your tanks in Karelia? If you hit Karelia hard on G2, you can bring them back to Baltic States on G3 (refilling Karelia with extra infantry), so that the tanks can return to France on G4 if that’s profitable, and continue on to West Russia or Archangel otherwise.

If you find yourself in a situation where you cannot hold Karelia on G3 without leaving your tanks sitting in it, I would say pull everything back to Baltic for a turn (lightly trading Karelia) and restack Karelia on G4. In a strong, early KGF opening; it’s not realistic to insist on crushing Soviet resistance early – you can try it, but if you’re not pulling ahead, there’s no shame in hilding the Axis lines at France, Baltic, Finland, Belorussia, and Egypt. Japan will be along to crush India soon enough, and you can pick up German momentum as you go, especially if you’re building lots of early infantry.

One more thought is that if Anglos are dumping 12 units into France on turn 4, they probably have little/no capacity to follow that ip on turn 5. Sink some transports, and take advantage of the lull on turns 5/6 to penetrate deeper into Russia.

“Low Luck” is a very common variant where instead of rolling dice, you add up all of the ‘pips’ in your attack roll, divide by 6, and then use one die to figure out whether your ‘remainder’ scores an additional hit. For example, if you’re attacking with 8 destroyers, and the destroyers each have 2 pips of offense, then you have a total of 8 * 2 = 16 pips. 16 / 6 = 2 remainder 4, so you automatically score 2 hits, and then you roll one die and score a third hit on a roll of 4 or less.

Low Luck has its fans, and it also has its haters. The debate has already spilled on for several pages, so here is a very short, incomplete summary:

1. With Low Luck, it’s very unlikely that you’ll invest five hours in building up a brilliant strategy only to have it smushed by a series of bad rolls
2. With Low Luck, the game goes faster because you don’t waste time rolling dozens and dozens of dice
3. With Low Luck, it’s very unlikely that you’ll face any interesting surprises, and the whole game will play out robotically within the confines of a tight script
4. With Low Luck, the game goes slower because you waste a lot of time precisely calculating how many pips you need for each battle.

I really don’t care about this debate. I care about showcasing my amazing new system that gives you the benefits of Low Luck (a fair chance to execute your strategy, and faster dice rolling) without the costs of Low Luck (boring predictability and analysis paralysis).

How to Use Fudge Dice to get Medium Luck

Fudge Dice are six-sided dice that have two blank sides, two sides with a minus sign, and two sides with a plus sign. The blanks represent zeroes, the pluses represent +1’s, and the minuses represent -1’s. The application is very straightforward: play with Low Luck Rules, ignore any remainder left over after you divide by 6, and instead of rolling a d6 to see if you hit a target, roll one guaranteed Fudge Die plus one more Fudge Die for every group of three units (“brigades”) you have in the battle (ignore any remainder), and modify your total number of hits by the total shown on the Fudge Dice. If you score a negative number of total hits, just round it up to zero hits.

Examples

For example, suppose you attack with 5 infantry and 2 tanks. You have (5 * 1) + (2 * 3) = 11 pips; 11 / 6 = 1 expected hit (ignoring the remainder). You have (5 + 2) / 3 = 2 full brigades, so you roll 2 (for your brigades) + 1 (because it’s guaranteed) = 3 Fudge Dice. The Fudge Dice show [+, +, -], which means you get +1 hit. 1 expected hit plus 1 extra hit is 2 total hits. Done.

Another example: suppose you attack with 2 infantry and 1 bomber. You have (2 * 1) + (1 * 4) = 6 pips; 6 / 6 = 1 expected hit. You have (3 / 3) = 1 full brigade, so you roll 1 (for your brigade) + 1 (because always) = 2 Fudge Dice. The Fudge Dice show [-, 0], which means you get -1 hit. 1 expected hit minus 1 blunder is 0 total hits. Done.

Why Fudge Dice are Amazing

This system provides more randomness than Low Luck, less randomness than Standard, faster dice rolling than Standard, and less reason to count every single pip than ordinary Low Luck – with Low Luck, you try to figure out the risk of attacking with a remainder of 4 vs. attacking with a remainder of 5, but here you either have 6 pips of offense, or you don’t – it’s easier to tell at a glance how you’ll want to arrange your battles, and you can just flush all the remainders when you’re doing your mental math.

Fudge Dice are very affordable and available in packs of 10 at your local gamestore or via Amazon. If you’re poor, you can just use regular d6’s and interpret rolls of 1 and 2 as a minus, rolls of 3 and 4 as a zero, and rolls of 5 and 6 as a plus. It works out the same.

Bonus: Bombing Raids and Anti-Air Strikes

When making a bombing run, roll two Fudge dice for each bomber you brought to the party, up to a maximum of 10 Fudge dice. Each roll of “+” scores 5 industrial damage. Each roll of “-” means that your bombers were targeted by anti-aircraft fire. After you roll, the defender picks up any of your Fudge dice that were showing a “-” and re-rolls them. Each die that is still showing a “-” after the re-roll kills one attacking bomber. If the defender has any anti-aircraft guns on site, she can use each AA gun to re-roll one of her misses. Regardless of how many AAA guns you have, any given Fudge die can only be rolled up to three times in an air raid (once for the attacker, and twice for the defender).

Example: Hitler is a madman, so Germany bombs Moscow with 5 bombers. Stalin is paranoid, so Moscow is defended by 3 AA guns. Germany rolls 5 Fudge dice, one for each bomber. They show [+, +, 0, -, -]. Germany inflicts 10 industrial damage on Moscow: 5 damage for each + sign showing. Russia will have to pay 10 IPCs next turn if she wants to fully repair the damage. Then, Russia picks up the two ‘minus’ dice and re-rolls them. They show [+, 0]. Russia uses one of her AAA guns to re-roll the +, and one of her AAA guns to re-roll the 0. Now the Fudge dice show [-, +]. Russia kills one of the German bombers because Russia rolled one minus sign on her AA Fudge dice. Russia still has a third AAA gun, but it is worthless for now because Russia has already re-re-rolled both of Germany’s minus dice, so that’s the end of the air raid.

OK, here’s a stab at CWO’s Low Luck / Med Luck / High Luck idea. You pick a stance for all your units at the beginning of each of your turns, when placing reinforcements, and then you’re stuck with that stance for all battles and units until the start of your next turn. First number is offense, Second number is defense. As in OOB, must roll the target number or lower to score a hit.

Low Luck (roll d4s for all units)

Infantry 1*/2 (+1 offense w/ artillery)
Artillery 1/2
Tanks 2/2
Fighters 1/3
Bombers 3/1
Subs 1/1 (sneak attack on offense, submerges unless blocked 1:1 by destroyers)
DD 1/2
CA 2/2 (bombards)
BB 2/3 (bombards, 2 hit to kill)
CV 1/1 (2 hit to kill)

Medium Luck (roll d6s, same as OOB)

Infantry 1*/2 (+1 offense with artillery)
Artillery 2/2
Tank 3/3
Fighter 3/4
Bomber 4/1
Subs 2/1 (sneak attack and submerge unless stopped by 1 or more DDs)
DD 2/2
CA 3/3 (bombards)
BB 4/4 (bombards, 2-hit to kill)
CV 1/2

High Luck (roll d8s)

Infantry 1*/3 (+1 offense w/ artillery)
Artillery 3/2
Tank 4/2 (scores two casualties on a roll of 1)
Fighter 3/5
Bomber 5/1 (scores two casualties on a roll of 1)
Subs 3/1 (sneak attack unless stopped by DD, no submerge)
DD 2/3
CA 3/3 (bombards, scores two casualties on a roll of 1)
BB 5/5 (bombards, two-hits to kill)
CV 1/1 (two hits to kill; on a roll of one, repairs itself mid-battle)

Disclaimer

This is a technical piece written in an academic style. If you’re new to Axis & Allies, or if you don’t like math, or if you want an exciting post, please read something else! On the other hand, if you love puzzles and abstract analysis, read on!

Intro

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Japan’s logistics: the puzzle of how to quickly get as many troops as possible off of the Japanese home islands (“Tokyo”) and onto the Eurasian mainland (“China”). The puzzle is interesting because Japan can only build 8 units a turn in Tokyo, but Japan’s economy is usually too big to limit itself to just 8 ground units. For example, a reasonable mix of 8 ground units is 5 infantry, 2 artillery, and 1 tank, which together cost 29 IPCs – but by the end of turn 2, Japan should already be collecting around 36 IPCs. How do you spend the extra seven bucks?

If you throw the money into tanks, you wind up with a very tank-heavy army, which is of limited use when you’re slogging through stiff resistance on your way to India and the Caucasus.

If instead you build a plane, you run into a different problem: now you have an odd number of ground units. For example, you could build 4 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, for a neat total of 36 IPCs…but then one of your transports is only carrying a single unit, which means that transport is probably giving you a lousy return on your investment. If you try to compensate by building two planes a turn, so that you can fully load three transports, then you run out of money! 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, for example, would cost you 42 IPCs, which is more than you’re likely to have for the first four turns or so.

You could try building a factory in, e.g., Manchuria – but, again, there’s a tendency for Japan to run out of money; if you try to build eleven units in a reasonable mix, e.g., 7 inf, 3 art, 2 tnk, then that would cost 45 IPCs, which you’re just not going to have in the opening.

What fascinates me is that all of these problems crop up even before you start to keep track of what America is doing to harass you in the Pacific, or the exact turn on which you hope to capture India, or anything like that. The problem comes straight from the setup conditions, and I’m going to try to solve it. There will be some math here, but if you stick with me, I’ll give you some concrete recommendations in this post about how many transports to buy as Japan, and in my next post, I’ll try to tackle Japanese factory construction.

The Economic Discount Rate

In economics, the ‘discount rate’ means the speed at which money loses its value. For example, if I offer you a choice between $6,000 today and $6,001 next year, you’ll probably pick the $6,000 today – it’s just not worth waiting a whole year to collect one extra dollar. If you had the money today, you could use it to invest in new resources and solve urgent problems, which is worth more than just one measly dollar. Maybe you can use the $6,000 to replace your broken-down van with a more reliable car, and save big bucks on auto repair payments.

OK, so – would you rather have $6,000 today, or $7,000 next year? How about $9,000? $30,000? At some point, unless you’ve only got a few months to live or something tragic like that, you’ll think it’s worthwhile to wait and take the larger payoff further in the future.

Let’s say your break-even point is $9,000. You figure that between the interest on your credit card, the money wasted at the mechanic, the hassle of having to take off work to go to the repair shop, etc., it really doesn’t matter which option you choose; you come out about the same if you take $6,000 now or if you take $9,000 next year. That means your “discount rate” is 33%, because money next year is worth 33% less to you than money this year. $9,000 * (1 - 33%) = $6,000.

I think this is about the situation on the Axis and Allies board: 6 IPCs right now are worth about the same amount as 9 IPCs next turn, or 13 IPCs two turns from now. If you give me 6 IPCs right now, I can use them to buy 2 infantry that will let me hold India for another turn, collecting India’s 3 IPCs. On the other hand, if you give me 6 IPCs next turn, I’ll lose India, and then I’ll only have the 6 IPCs. That’s why you have to pay me 9 IPCs if you wait until next turn – the IPCs aren’t worth as much if I have to wait for them. If I’m going to choose a strategy that delays when my troops get to the front lines, then that strategy better have some other payoff that compensates for the lost income from not being able to hold on to (or rapidly conquer) the territory on the front lines.

You could make a plausible case that the “real” discount rate for Axis & Allies is anywhere from 15% to 60%. Part of it depends on what kind of strategies people are using. If you’re blitzing for Moscow with an army of all tanks and bombers in a low-luck game, the discount rate will be very high: I need that money right now, before Moscow falls, and every unit I add has a big chance of swinging that battle. On the other hand, if you’re slowly teasing each other with destroyers in a full-luck game, then the discount rate will be very low: as long as I get my money eventually, I can afford to wait a few turns without losing anything more than a couple of sea zones.

Adjusting for the Cost of Delivery

If you look closely at the stats and prices of A&A units, you can see that quite a lot of the cost of a high-priced unit goes into paying for its higher mobility. For example, a bomber has 4 Offense, 1 Defense, 6 Movement, 1 Hit Point, and costs 12 IPCs. But for those same 12 IPCs, you could buy two infantry and a tank, which would have 5 Offense, 7 Defense, 1 Movement, and 3 Hit Points. If you’re not concerned about the movement rate, the 2 inf + 1 tnk is a much, much better buy.

When it comes to evaluating Japanese purchasing plans, I think we’re not much concerned about the movement rate. The hard part is getting units to China via factories or transports. Once they’re in China, they don’t really need to move more than one territory per turn. For example, Yunnan is three moves from Moscow and two moves from India. Unless your opponent’s an idiot, all of those territories will be defended, often staunchly enough that you can’t afford to advance with just your tanks unless you want those tanks smashed to bits. And if you can only move one territory per turn, your tanks aren’t worth the 6 IPCs you paid for them, nor are the bombers worth the 12 IPCs you paid for them. They’re worth much less.

This might be controversial, but I’d suggest the following values for units that are intended for a slow ground assault, once delivery is accounted for. The values are in an imaginary currency called “siege points,” which represents the value of a unit that’s part of a slow, ground-based campaign of attack, like the ones that Japan can expect to fight in southeast Asia.

Infantry – 3 siege points
Artillery – 4 siege points
Tanks – 5 siege points (even though they cost 6 IPCs)
Fighters – 6 siege points (even though they cost 10 IPCs)
Bombers – 7 siege points (even though they cost 12 IPCs).

To double-check these values, imagine attacking with 2 inf, 2 art vs. attacking with 1 inf, 1 art, 1 bomber. The all-ground forces have 8 points of offense and 4 hit points, and if they win they hold the territory with 8 points of defense. The mixed forces also have 8 points of offense, but only 3 hit points, and if they win they only hold the territory with 4 points of defense (the bomber can’t land in the newly captured territory). If anything, the bomber is less effective than 1 inf, 1 art would be. I’m crediting the bomber with 7 imaginary ‘points’ of siege value in part because the bomber is flexible, and no siege is so static that it’s never worthwhile to have some extra mobility. For example, the bomber helps deter enemy naval reinforcements, and gives you the option of a strategic bombing run. In a straight-up attack, though, the bomber isn’t even as good as two ground units, let alone four ground units.

Don’t get me wrong: a bomber is probably worth the 12 IPCs you pay for it when it’s sitting in Tokyo. The fact that the bomber can take off from Tokyo and get its fat behind over to the front lines without any help from a transport or a new factory is a huge asset. But once you separate out the cost of delivering the bomber to the front lines, as I’m about to do in the next section, then the bomber’s extra mobility is not very valuable. It’s much better to have a bomber in Tokyo that can move to the front lines than to have three ground units stuck in Tokyo sitting on their thumbs – but it’s usually much better for Japan to have three ground units on the front lines than to have one bomber on the front lines.

Assumptions and Scoring

So, with all that theory in mind, here are my assumptions for the thought experiment:
(1) Japan is ferrying all available troops to Yunnan in southeast China.
(2) Cargo has to arrive in Yunnan by turn 6 at the latest, or it is worth no points.
(3) Japan earns 30 IPCs on turn 1 and 38 IPCs on turns 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
(4) Japan builds no factories.
(5) Japan never has to devote any resources to defending its transports (other than its starting navy and air force).
(6) Japan has a discount rate of 33%, meaning that a soldier delivered on turn 2 is worth 1.5 times as many points as a soldier delivered on turn 3.
(7) Japan is willing to evacuate any/all of its island garrisons in order to support the blitz through Yunnan to India and Moscow.
(8 ) Japan will try to fill any transports it has as best it can, and then spend any remaining money on planes.
(9) The UK sinks one of Japan’s two starting transports on the UK’s first turn. Other than that, the UK navy / air force in the Pacific is immediately sunk or evacuated and poses no further problems until after turn 6.

After six turns, Japan gets a ‘siege score’ based on how many siege points’ worth of soldiers it delivered to Yunnan, and how quickly the soldiers got there. Turn 1 is not scored, because the delivery is totally based on the initial setup. Soldiers delivered on turn 2 are worth full credit in siege points, and then soldiers delivered on turns 3, 4, 5, or 6 are discounted by 33% per turn, compounded each turn. The strategy that gets the highest adjusted total of siege points is considered to have ‘won’ the thought experiment.

How Many Transports Should You Build as Japan?

So: given these assumptions, how many transports should you build if you want to optimize your discounted siege score? Let’s take a look at four of the major options.

Build Zero Transports (Stick with only one Transport)

With only one transport, you can ship 2 ground units each turn, and the rest of your cash is going to have to go into planes. Importantly, you start with six ground units in Tokyo from the initial setup (4 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk) and two ground units (1 inf, 1 art) in Manila that are very easy to deliver to Tokyo (you can pick them up on your way without losing a turn). That means that for the first four turns, you can fill your transport with pre-existing ground units, so you don’t have to build any ground units on turns 1, 2, or 3. Starting on turn 4, you need to build two ground units each turn so you can keep your transport full.

That means on turn 1 you can build 3 fighters, on turns 2 and 3 you can build 3 bombers, and on turns 4 and beyond you can build 1 inf, 1 art, and 3 fighters. On turn 2 (the first turn that we’re going to score) you deliver (1 inf * 3 siege points) + (1 art * 4 siege points) + (3 ftr * 6 siege points) = 25 siege points. On turn 3, you deliver (1 inf * 3 siege) + (1 art * 4 siege) + (3 bomber * 7 siege points) = 28 siege points, but we have to discount that by 33%, for an adjusted total of 19 siege points. On turn 4, you’ve run out of artillery, so you deliver (2 inf * 3 siege) + (3 bomber * 7 siege) = 27 siege, and you have to discount it by 33% twice, yielding 27 * (2/3) * (2/3) = 12 adjusted siege points. On turn 5, you have a fresh supply of artillery from your first wave of ground unit construction, so you deliver (1 inf * 3 siege) + (1 art * 4 siege) + (3 fighter * 6 siege) = 25 siege. Multiply by 2/3 three times to adjust for the discount rate, and you get 7 siege points. The same delivery on turn 6 is worth 5 siege points because you have to multiply by 2/3 four times. Let’s stop there – we’re going to be dealing with tinier and tinier numbers as we move forward in time, and the troops you deliver to Yunnan after turn 6 might not reach Moscow before the game is decided, and at this point America is probably breathing down your neck anyway.

Your air-heavy strategy, relying on only your starting transport, yields 25 + 19 + 12 + 7 + 5 = 68 discounted siege points. Can we do better?

Build Three Transports, for a total of Four Transports

Here’s the opposite strategy: suppose we build three transports on turn 1, hoping to rely exclusively on ground troops for our attack. There are 8 ground units available from setup, 2 of which will be unloaded on turn 1, so we have to replace those units with the turn 1 build in order to fill all 4 transports on turn 2. That means the turn 1 build is something like 3 transports, 1 inf, 1 tank. Starting on turn 2, we’ll need to build 8 ground units to make sure all 4 transports are full. Since we have plenty of money, that means a build of 4 inf, 4 tnk each turn.

On turn 2, the first turn that gets scored, we deliver 4 inf, 2 art, 2 tanks for a total of (43) + (24) + (25) = 30 siege points. On Turn 3, we deliver 4 inf, 4 tnk for a total of (43) + (4*5) = 32 siege points, adjusted down by 33% for an adjusted total of 21 siege points. On Turn 4, we deliver the same 4 inf, 4 tnk for 21 * 2/3 = 14 siege points. Turn 5 is worth 9 siege points, and Turn 6 is worth 6 siege points. This strategy yielded 30 + 21 + 14 + 9 + 6 = 80 discounted siege points … much better than the 68 discounted siege points from the all-air strategy! It looks like Japanese transports built on turn 1, assuming they survive through Japan’s turn 6 (reasonable in a KGF game), will more than pay for the cost of their investment.

Build Four Transports, for a total of Five Transports

There’s one more option we need to discuss: a fifth transport! What can Japan do with a fifth transport? For starters, Japan can deliver its initial setup pieces more quickly – even though Japan can’t sustain a delivery of 10 ground units per turn from Tokyo (because it can only build 8 units per turn in Tokyo), it will take a long time for the starting units to run out. Let’s see how this plays out:

Turn 1, build 4 transports.
Turns 2 through 6, build 4 inf, 4 tnk.

Turn 2, deliver 4 inf, 2 art, 2 tnk (30 pts). We have a fifth transport available, but it does not have any ground troops available to transport. Send that transport to Iwo Jima and Okinawa to collect the 2 infantry there.

Turn 3, deliver 6 inf, 4 tnk (38 * 2/3 = 25 pts) by dropping off the Iwo Jima and Okinawa infantry.

Turn 4, deliver 4 inf, 4 tnk (32 * 4/9 = 14 pts), and send the extra transport to East Indies for 2 more infantry.

Turn 5, deliver 6 inf, 4 tnk (38 * 8/27 = 11 pts) by delivering the infantry from the East Indies

Turn 6, deliver 4 inf, 4 tnk (32 * 16/81 = 6 pts) because the fifth transport can go fetch infantry from New Guinea, but they won’t get back to China until turn 7.

Total score: 30 + 25 + 14 + 11 + 6 = 86 points…a noticeable improvement over the 80-point four-transport strategy!

Build Five Transports, for a total of Six Transports

Now we’re getting deep into crazytown – can Japan make efficient use of a sixth transport?

Turn 1, build 4 transports, save 2 IPC
Turn 2, build 1 transport, 4 inf, 2 art, 2 tnk
Turns 3 through 6, build 4 inf, 4 tnk

Turn 2, deliver 4 inf, 2 art, 2 tnk (30 pts). We have a fifth transport available, but it does not have any ground troops available to transport. Send that transport to Iwo Jima and Okinawa to collect the 2 infantry there.

Turn 3, deliver 6 inf, 2 art, 2 tnk (36 * 2/3 = 24 pts) by dropping off the Iwo Jima and Okinawa infantry. Send the sixth transport to the Caroline Islands to pick up one infantry there.

Turn 4, deliver 5 inf, 4 tnk (35 * 4/9 = 16 pts) by dropping off the Caroline infantry. Send the fifth transport to the East Indies to pick up two infantry there.

Turn 5, deliver 6 inf, 4 tnk (38 * 8/27 = 11 pts) by delivering the infantry from the East Indies. Send the sixth transport to Borneo to pick up one infantry there.

Turn 6, deliver 5 inf, 4 tnk (35 * 16/81 = 7 pts) by delivering the infantry from Borneo. The fifth transport can be sent to New Guinea to fetch the one infantry there, but it won’t make it back to China until at least turn 7, so it doesn’t count.

Total score: 30 + 24 + 16 + 11 + 7 = 88 points. Amazing! The sixth transport manages to pay for itself and deliver a small profit. The score on turn 3 (24 pts) is slightly weaker because building the sixth transport cuts into the funds we need to build ground units, so we have to swap out a pair of tanks for a pair of artillery. But that’s OK, because we deliver an extra infantry on turn 4 and on turn 6, which together are more important than the downgrade on turn 3.

Notice that a seventh transport would not pay for itself, because instead of just downgrading units, we’d probably lose a unit altogether. Worse, the seventh transport wouldn’t be able to deliver two new units until turn 6 (when the units are worth considerably less) because it has to ferry them all the way from New Guinea and the Solomons.

Conclusion

So – if you buy the initial assumptions that we’re ferrying cargo strictly to Yunnan beach, and that it has to arrive by turn 6 at the latest, and that Japanese income is constant on turns 2 through 6, and that we’re not building any factories, and that Japan never has to devote any resources to defending its transports (other than its starting navy and air force), and that the discount rate is 33%, then the optimal number of transports for Japan to build is 5 transports, so it can wind up with a fleet of 6 transports altogether.

Obviously, in a real game, these assumptions will have to be varied somewhat – but I think in a Kill Germany First (“KGF”) game, these assumptions are realistic enough that the underlying lesson still carries some value. Many players work with a fleet of 4 transports or even just 3 transports for Japan, and in a KGF game, that just doesn’t seem like enough to me. It’s better to build a couple ‘extra’ transports to help get your troops off the islands than to insist on a ‘perfect’ 4 inf + 4 tnk build or to try to rely on air power to make up the transport gap.

In my next post, I’ll discuss how things change when we add factories as an option. If the series attracts enough interest, future posts will also discuss leaving a budget to fend off American attacks in the Pacific, higher and lower discount rates, and a more detailed model of how Japanese income changes over time.