Japanes IC on J1?

[vanzant316]

I have a buddy who always screams at me when I don’t build an IC on one of the Japanese controlled mainland areas on Japan’s first turn.  He’s convinced everyone else in our play group that building the IC is the only viable strategy for Japan.

My typicle strategy is to build transports first and support my push into China/Sink with 8 infantry per turn.  If things go well, then I consider a Japanese factory on J2.

Who is right?  Him or me?

[cyan]

@vanzant316:

I have a buddy who always screams at me when I don’t build an IC on one of the Japanese controlled mainland areas on Japan’s first turn.  He’s convinced everyone else in our play group that building the IC is the only viable strategy for Japan.

My typicle strategy is to build transports first and support my push into China/Sink with 8 infantry per turn.  If things go well, then I consider a Japanese factory on J2.

Who is right?  Him or me?

i uasaully buy transports and then my first ic is in INDIA. my second one is in moscow.  :evil:

[NoMercy]

There is no right or wrong here.

First of all it depends a lot on what the UK player does first and how he positions his UK pacific fleet. and also where he positions is UK bomber.

There is 2 important attacks you must perform on J1 (you must hit China hard and you must take Pearl out), You’re most likely going to lose some Naval units before the 1st round is completed.

So your turn 1 purchase is determined by what the UK player does and how you want to perform your J1 attacks and non-combats because you need to protect those transports or a mainland IC if you buy one on the first turn.

Revised is a great game and it is open to a lot of different strategies.

Sometimes you can even wait for a IC until J3 and focus on your transports for turns 1-2.
ideally your going to want Japan to have 6-7 transports and 2 IC…

Transports early are good for unloading troops into Asia and for recovering all those Inf on your islands and taking Australia/New zealand and even Hawaii and threaten the Western side of the United States to keep them a bit honest. (ussually they build there troops on the west  though and move them to W-CAn then to E-CAn and then off to the war on Germany)

[NoMercy]

strategically I like to place my first IC in FIC and a 2nd one in India

Depending on my strategy I once had 1 in India, 1 in FIC and 1 in East-Indies and did a strong Southern push and took and held Africa then worked my way unto Cauc.

[Guest]

Mathematically, an IC on J1 IF you have a bid of at least $1 to Japan is the way to go.

The problem is, this game is NOT just math…

[Gewehr]

When ever I play as japan, I usually use transports to send troops to china at first, and if I can stall the American Navy for a turn, then I’ll buy an IC to put in china.

[cyan]

@Gewehr:

When ever I play as japan, I usually use transports to send troops to china at first, and if I can stall the American Navy for a turn, then I’ll buy an IC to put in china.

but your only producing two tanks at most in it. you don’t mazimize your builds in a 1 or 2 ipc country.

[Jennifer]

I am not saying an IC on J1 is a bad idea.  I’ve done it myself.  However, I like to keep Japan more flexible on round 1 then that.  It helps motivate America to go away.  Personally, I lean more to 3 transports, 2 infantry on J1.  That should give you 4 transports total (assuming the transport in SZ 59 was destroyed.)

Anyway, before you have 6 moving transports (ie already on the board) I don’t see a desperate need for industry for Japan.  This is revised, not classic, so moving tanks is not an issue like it was in classic. (Who wanted to waste a transport on 1 tank when they could have 2 infnatry?  But now you can do infantry and tank!)

[DarthMaximus]

@vanzant316:

Who is right?  Him or me?

You are.

I don’t like an IC on J1 for a few reasons.

First (if all the bid went to Ger) and you only have 30 ipc to spend that is 1 IC and 1 trn and assuming UK takes out your trn in Sz 59 you only get 7 units to Asia on J2, whereas if you bought 3 trns you can get 8.

Second, you sould be earning consideraby more than 32 ipc before you consider an IC since 32 ipc = 4 inf, 4 arm (4 trns).

Third, you need trns to get inf off of your islands, then at least one to go take Aus, Nz, etc.

Fourth, it somewhat protects you from a US naval strat, since you have more trns for fodder, but can still use them to move inf.

Fifth (or 4B), I don’t think it is wise to commit to an IC before the US goes.
I’ve played plenty of games where Japan commits to a Fic IC on J1 but has a sub par Pearl attack.
Now (as the US), I’ll go Pac strat cause I know in about 4-5 turns Japan won’t be able to defend Sz 36, Sz 60, Fic and Japan.  Which means the Fic IC is eventually hung out to dry since Japan is more concerned about keeping Tokyo.

I will often wait until J3.  My cut off is usually:
if I have 36 IPC or more on J2, I’ll get the IC on J2,
but if I have less than 36 on J2, I’ll get another tran and then get the IC on J3.

[Amon-Sul]

@DarthMaximus:

@vanzant316:

Who is right?  Him or me?

You are.

I don’t like an IC on J1 for a few reasons.

First (if all the bid went to Ger) and you only have 30 ipc to spend that is 1 IC and 1 trn and assuming UK takes out your trn in Sz 59 you only get 7 units to Asia on J2, whereas if you bought 3 trns you can get 8.

Second, you sould be earning consideraby more than 32 ipc before you consider an IC since 32 ipc = 4 inf, 4 arm (4 trns).

Third, you need trns to get inf off of your islands, then at least one to go take Aus, Nz, etc.

Fourth, it somewhat protects you from a US naval strat, since you have more trns for fodder, but can still use them to move inf.

Fifth (or 4B), I don’t think it is wise to commit to an IC before the US goes.
I’ve played plenty of games where Japan commits to a Fic IC on J1 but has a sub par Pearl attack.
Now (as the US), I’ll go Pac strat cause I know in about 4-5 turns Japan won’t be able to defend Sz 36, Sz 60, Fic and Japan.  Which means the Fic IC is eventually hung out to dry since Japan is more concerned about keeping Tokyo.

I will often wait until J3.  My cut off is usually:
if I have 36 IPC or more on J2, I’ll get the IC on J2,
but if I have less than 36 on J2, I’ll get another tran and then get the IC on J3.

sounds interesting, i see it similar J2 or J3 for the first IC

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
  For me, I buy 2 trans and 3 armor, (because I always give Japan at least one bid $).
My reason for the armor is to support my push on India and the Soviet Far East early with some punch and some good advanced defence. I then buy a transport a turn until I have at least 7 of them. Then I’ll buy an IC for FIC. I end up building 3 I.C.s before the game is over. Unless the USA builds one in Singkiang for me. 
Japan needs to be aggressive as quickly as possible, and that requires more armor at the front than seems logical. Russia can’t ignore this, so they must siphion off troops to deal with this threat, therefore, less for the German player to have to deal with. The front will stall for a couple of turns, while the slow Japanese infantry start to catch up, but by turn 7 or 8 you should be ready to put the hammer to Moscow, followed by Germanys onslaught in the next turn.
  15 IPC on the first turn must go to combat units to replace your front line losses on turn one, otherwise, Soviet counterattacks could cost you all your gains and more.
  crazy Ivan  :roll:

[NoMercy]

There is multiple points to look at it.

1. it all depends on what the UK does and what your navy losses were on turn 1
2. Early IC may slow Japan down a little bit early on but will help out a lot more in the long run.
3. It is not advisable to use the same standard moves and purchases every game or you can risk an opponent developping a way to counter it. (other words keep them thinking)

I just tried a Double IC purchase. (1 on FIC, 1 on East-Indies) and I positioned my Jap fleet on turn 1 in a way that my WHOLE Japaneese navy could hit the US navy around SZ 55 on J2 to perhaps deter them from massing there on turn 1.

On turn 3 I had 7 transports, 3 IC’s and making 40$ and then each turn it will be over 40$ and my early IC’s are coming in big handy now.

Some players advise on a US pacific strat, I for one would never consider using a US pacific strat unless I had ideal conditions and I could kill over 50% of Japans naval power on turn 1.

I have had a couple of players use the US navy route on me with no success, because that leaves Russia/UK vs Germany alone with Germany outproducing both of them and with Japan still sending moderate forces up the north route to take way more of russians IPC and to to annoy and harrass them.

[Jennifer]

A US Pacific strat becomes viable in certain circumstances.

Say, England does a unification in SZ 30 and Japan hits them there.  Japan will most certainly lose a large portion of his airforce and fleet.  They will win, but America will out number them at the end of Round 1 easily and can press that advantage forcing them to commit to fleet or make a wild dash for Moscow.

Or, Japan hits Hawaii hard, but takes massive damage.  If you can take out a carrier and/or a battleship and have a good chance of not losing the American battleship, it might again be plausible to attempt a disembowel Japan first, then kill Germany strategy.

In either event, I always set up Russia and England to move on Japan in case the sistuation becomes, shall we say, pleasant for America?

[DarthMaximus]

I agree.

The only thing you really have to worry about is if Germany goes aggressive with a fleet unification threat or drops some trns in the Baltic/Med.  That may require more of a US presence in the Atlantic.  Otherwise the US is safe to go after Japan all on its own (regardless of Pearl results).  Although it doesn’t hurt if Japan takes 2-3 hits there.

You don’t even need Japan to hit the Sz 30 fleet.  Obviously if they do that is great, cause they’ll take damage, weaken the Pearl attack, and then be out of range on J2.  But if they don’t, UK can reinforce Afr or swing some ships south and eventually meet up with the US at Sol is.

Russia and UK can quite easily deal with Germany, if the US does its job, plus the US still has 2 trns 1 dd in the Atlantic and with your starting units you have about 3 turns to help support the UK without buying another ground troop.  So even if you went 2 AC, 3 inf on US 1 that gives you like 4 turns worth of troops to the Atlantic.

This is why an early IC in Fic (or even Ind on J2 or 3) can be bad.  It doesn’t take much for the US to be able to move to Sol, and once they do Japan’s top proirity is to protect Sz 60 and Japan.  The US only needs like 4 ground units plus ftrs to make a somewhat legit threat on Japan since they can only place 8 units.

It isn’t unreasonable to think that the US could have 4 inf on Sol and 6 ftrs in the sz at Sol by rd 4.  With 2 more ftrs on ac in sz 55.  If Japan doesn’t defend sz 60 and moved to 61 or is at Fic, the US can assualt Japan.  If Sz 60 is protected the US starts to pick off the 4 ipc islands and looks to place a complex or capture the one already placed on Fic by Japan.

It obviously isn’t perfect and takes some setting up but it is quite effective.  I like to actually switch to it somewhere in rds 3-5 once I kill all the German ships, instead of using right from the start.

[NoMercy]

in a relative short amount of time, Japan should be making more IPC then US.
and Japan also starts with a more considerable fleet in the Pacific then the US.

Conditions have to be very ideal I believe anyway for the US to consider Pacific action early on and it requires the UK to consodilate there fleet and help out. (and if they do this, it’s almost safe to believe the trn off KWA and the Sub in SOL SZ both survived to add to the defensive capabilities of Japan)

It’s important to note the UK moves before Japan so you have a good chance at the US trns.
I also would almost consider a toe-toe fight with the US and force you to move foward enough as I can build and reinforce my fleet faster close to Japan then you can build them off the west coast and move them to East-Indies etc… Meaning I can build a force to whack that US fleet and still move moderate troops against Russia.

Germany will be making around 50$ in no time if the States moves off to the Pacific. (while Russia hovers around 20ish and the UK in the low 20’s) which means in a short amount of time lets say around turns 5-7 they will have amassed a nice force…enough to move forward and force the russians to abandon Cauc.

if the UK fleet doesn’t join together on UK1, as Japan you can pick them off hopefully without hardly any Naval Looses by using your Battleships to your advantage. And as discussed you can also setup your Japan fleet on turn 1 in a way that you can use it’s full force to attack any US fleet in the pacific on turn 2.

I just think if the allies let the Axis have all of Africa early and hard and it’s just hard for them to keep up if they all have low economy’s. not to mention that UK fleet will be an easier target for the German player without any significant US presence in the Atlantic/Europe/Africa

I think a US presence in the Pacific can be devastating later on in the game after you have secured Africa and have the eastern-front stabalized and you need that extra push to force the Axis to surrender because they can’t keep up.

[DarthMaximus]

@NoMercy:

in a relative short amount of time, Japan should be making more IPC then US.
and Japan also starts with a more considerable fleet in the Pacific then the US.

Not really true (sfe, yak, bury, sin, chi, ind) = 40 for Japan
US = 38

Even if Japan trades novo that top out at 42-45 at best.  That is still not enough of an adv to sink the US fleet.

@NoMercy:

It’s important to note the UK moves before Japan so you have a good chance at the US trns.

Not with a Pac strat.  US goes right after Japan, thus moving first and UK reinforces (if available).

@NoMercy:

I also would almost consider a toe-toe fight with the US and force you to move foward enough as I can build and reinforce my fleet faster close to Japan then you can build them off the west coast and move them to East-Indies etc… Meaning I can build a force to whack that US fleet and still move moderate troops against Russia.

US ACs and Ftrs are very dangerous.  :evil:
It is not easy to sink the US fleet and if Japan goes that route, they woun’t be getting much if anything to Asia.  Certainly not enough to justify a round 1 IC (my whole point).
The US doesn’t need to sink the J fleet, just make sure it is stuck in Sz 60.

@NoMercy:

Germany will be making around 50$ in no time if the States moves off to the Pacific. (while Russia hovers around 20ish and the UK in the low 20’s) which means in a short amount of time lets say around turns 5-7 they will have amassed a nice force…enough to move forward and force the russians to abandon Cauc.

Not true at all.
Germany won’t have such an easy go in Afr.  UK/US can still land in rd 1 (they can even wait until rd 2).
The UK has 6 inf (3 ind, 1 per, 1 trj, 1 safr) to work with.  Plus 2-3 from Aus depending on when you pull them.

Russia earns ~29, ~30, ~29 for the first three turns at least.  And it is not uncommon to hit over 30 for more than 1 rd.

Germany won’t top 50, they may max out at 44-46 but UK and Rus can certainly handle that, since they’ll be at a combined 55-56 ipc.

@NoMercy:

if the UK fleet doesn’t join together on UK1, as Japan you can pick them off hopefully without hardly any Naval Looses by using your Battleships to your advantage. And as discussed you can also setup your Japan fleet on turn 1 in a way that you can use it’s full force to attack any US fleet in the pacific on turn 2.

That would just be foolish to split the UK fleet, if you are even remotely considering US Pac strat.

Also remember, I specifically talking about Japan throwing down a round 1 IC. 
And US goes after Japan which means US hasn’t commited anything to the Pac, yet Japan may have made suboptimal moves in preventing somthing that may never take place.

@NoMercy:

I just think if the allies let the Axis have all of Africa early and hard and it’s just hard for them to keep up if they all have low economy’s. not to mention that UK fleet will be an easier target for the German player without any significant US presence in the Atlantic/Europe/Africa

You won’t be conceding Afr.

@NoMercy:

I think a US presence in the Pacific can be devastating later on in the game after you have secured Africa and have the eastern-front stabalized and you need that extra push to force the Axis to surrender because they can’t keep up.

I agree with this, which is why I really like the mid-game switch.

[NoMercy]

yes my whole point was referring to a mid-game switch for the States being more powerful
I was just throwing out other options that are available to Japan early on.

if the UK joins there fleet together then I agree with you Japan SHOULD not place an IC down on turn 1. Other then that it is a toss up I personally find for a IC or transports or if you have a bid of 1$ to Japan, you can make 1 IC + 2 trns on turn 1 (wait for the UK move first obviously)

Not really true (sfe, yak, bury, sin, chi, ind) = 40 for Japan
US = 38
Even if Japan trades novo that top out at 42-45 at best.  That is still not enough of an adv to sink the US fleet

it’s enough to sink it if you are only building AC’s and fighters and I throw in mass subs just to take out the AC’s and let the subs take all you’re returning firepower. (subs are dangereous, Japan laready has a good fleet, I will simply add subs every turn to prepare for any first-strike vs your allied fleets.

I agree not much will be going to Asia but my point was Japan can go a naval route and compete with the States.

[NoMercy]

Not true at all.
Germany won’t have such an easy go in Afr.  UK/US can still land in rd 1 (they can even wait until rd 2).
The UK has 6 inf (3 ind, 1 per, 1 trj, 1 safr) to work with.  Plus 2-3 from Aus depending on when you pull them.

Russia earns ~29, ~30, ~29 for the first three turns at least.  And it is not uncommon to hit over 30 for more than 1 rd.

Germany won’t top 50, they may max out at 44-46 but UK and Rus can certainly handle that, since they’ll be at a combined 55-56 ipc.

The UK/RU combo will only make 55-56 for the first 2-4 turns and then it dwindles  :-D

first of all a lot depends on the bid placement agreed? a transport to the med for a bid is a bit deadly and risky to try a Pacific strat route.

I will assume most bids end up being into Africa and if the UK cannot counter or re-take Egypt on turn1, that’s all Germany needs to buildup and reinforce it and therefore the UK alone will not be able to take back Africa. and you cannot count on the US for help since most of your offensive punch in fgts will be in the Pacific to protect and deal with the Japan Navy.

I will just sum things up where yes the J1 IC IMO depends on first what the UK player does and if you have a bid or not, if you have just the 30$ then yeah wait it out first perhaps kind of deal…

[Jennifer]

Just like to add that while Japan is going for IPC to match America’s production, America is building fleet and sinking the Japanese.

And, it should also be added, that a German carrier build on round 1 is an AWESOME time to go for KJF.

[Guest]

If Japan is careful with their FIGs in J1 and J2, Japan CAN build even with the US for several turns while still maintaning pressure in Asia to gain ICs.  The US has to expend $42 IPC’s to get 2 loaded AC’s in the water.  Japan STARTS with 2 nearly loaded AC’s in the water (add 1 land based FIG, and they have 2 w/o spending a dime).

In the next turn, USA has to spend $36 to get the loaded AC, Japan needs spend only $16 and send 2 more land based FIGs to the AC.  That leaves $47 IPC in J1 and J2 for Asian conquest, and still matching the USA loaded AC for loaded AC, plus Japan should still be up a BB from their starting ships.

If Japan plays only SLIGHTLY conservative with their fleet, they can build with the USA toe-to-toe while they increase their cash to be equal to (or greater than) the US revenue, weaken Russia a bit, take cash from UK, and then let Germany raid in Africa and the Middle East.

Conservative play from J1 forward and Japan will have their IC producing INF in Asia, while their Tokyo IC produces ships to counter the US thrust.

I have done this successfully before, and I have failed doing it before.