Number 3 is a mix of 2 tran + 1 IC (Japanese took one IPC from the bid). It’s sort of a mix between 1 and 2, except that each turn I add 1 IC and build pure inf every turn until I have 3 IC’s to construct from, then max out on tanks. This way is slow, but gets lots of infantry on all 3 prongs of the attack as needed then the tanks come roaring in.
Number 4 is playing the long term. Build 3 tran, immediately offload into F. Indo with the existing tran, then go grab the outlying IPCs as quickly as possible. We’re talking like Madagascar + Hawaii on J2, then S. Africa, Australia, and New Zealand on J3. The problem is that pushing on the mainland is slow and tedious until later, which means you aren’t that far economically ahead if at all since you’re missing lots of those IPCs in Asia.
What’s your guys’s preferences/thoughts? What’re the other other good options I’m missing here?
Of your options listed, these are better. Except for 3, I wouldn’t add an IC every turn. You may never have the cash to fill them. I prefer an IC in FIC early, then India when I can, using the japanese navy to support an underneath push towards cau and africa.
with KHF so prevelant(and effective), Germany needs to beef up and hold fast, so in doing that, many Revised games are 15+ round slug fests. Long term thinking should win over the massive tank push for Japan (option 1).
I am not saying that can not work, I am just saying, Germany would also need to push hard for that too work, and then you just end up trading moscow for Berlin, which is still an allied win (in my book).
Plenty on variations possible on this one, according to each one’s personal taste. Here’s mine:
I happen to like transports. They are useful in getting free infantry from your islands and later in landing in Africa. When Japan’s finally reached the limit of it’s production capacity, then I think about ICs.
I like to have 4 transports early myself, at least to make use of the 8 builds a turn on Japan.
24 IPCs on 3 transports unlocks a total of 8 units (since you already have a tran)
30 IPCs on 2 complexes unlocks a total of 6 units
So you spend more to get less, in a way. Of course, IC’s can dump more tanks.
If I don’t mistake U-505 suggested to me that an optimized buy for Japan, considering TRN in sz59 sunk, which I usually use as Japan.
J1 (30): 3 TRN, saving 6 IPC.
Japan have already 10 land units at hand in J1, counting also the inf in the nearby islands: Philippine, Okinawa and Wake. Two are loaded in J1 so there are still 8 land units available for J2.
Considering that Japan usually may conquer China (2) and Buratyia (1) in J2 Japan have 39 IPC:
J2 (39): 1 IC (15), and 24 IPC for 8 inf.
Japan lands in Asia 2 unit in J1, 8 in J2, 8 (TRN)+3(IC) inJ3.
When Japanese income increase enough I buy another IC, around turn 4 or 5. Until then all the IPC are used to buy inf+tank. I do not buy too early the second IC because I prefer to buy some fighters also.
Naturally this work if the Allied are going KGF, otherwise the situation is different.
Why save 6? Just get the two infantry. IF you don’t use them now, you will later.
J1 (30): 3 TRN, saving 6 IPC.
That is a good point, but I still wouldn’t save the 6 IPCs. Build a tank with it, and drop off a tank instead of an inf on J2, that allows you for a little more punching/defensive power. Save the IPC on the next turn when you only need to build 3 inf 4 tank to get the max units on Japan.
Or build 2 infantry and have full transports. :P
I save 6 to have 39 in J2, considering the conquest of China and Buratyia. So I can buy an IC (15) and 8 inf(24).
As I said on J1 Japan have 10 land units available in Japan or within 1 sz of distance:
Japan: 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank
Philippine: 2 inf
Okinawa: 1 inf
Wake: 1 inf
Considerign lost the TRN in sz59 (A sure event in my games), 2 units are landed in J1.
So in J2 I have 8 units and 4 TRN, perfect match.
The extra 2 inf should be bought if sz59 was alive.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Mmm…
Spending all on J1… means having 33 on J2.
Buying the IC means 18 IPC instead of 24.
Not so a big difference.
Maybe 1 tank in J1 may be interesting… I should try it!
Don’t spend money on units that aren’t going to be moved in the following turn. There is no reason to use the extra $6 to build 2 inf that are going to sit until J3.
And buying 1 extra armor on J1 and landing it instead of 1 inf isn’t going to shift the balance of power in Asia. Unless the Russians completely retreat from Asia immediately, Japan’s 1st turn landings end up stalling until following landings start to push Russia back anyway, so having 1 more armor and 1 less infantry in Asia on J1 isn’t game changing. Early on, it’s Japan’s air force that carries the weight of offensive power. Rarely, if ever, will 1 extra armor and 1 less inf mean gaining more territory any faster.
In my opinion, you should always give Japan 2 IPC’s from the bid to give you the option of building 4 TP’s on J1. You may not build 4 TP’s, but having the option to do it is important. But, if you have only the $30 Japan starts with, then build the 3 TP and save the $6. You still may not be sure that the Allies are going KGF by the time Japan moves so having that extra money gives Japan a lot of flexibility to react to the Allied moves.
Thanks U-505. Karma +1 for you for having given a theoretic background to this startegy and a support at my explanations that seemed not enough to show the goodness of the strategy.
You suggested me this strategy months ago, in one of my first thread I participate in.
I have used it and I feel well with it. Usually I buy 8 inf on J2 with the 24 reamining IPC, but having 24 IPc is also possible to buy other things (even a BB … :-D)
For the bid I would try. Until now we usually give the 8-9 IPC from the Bid to Germany.
I save 6 to have 39 in J2, considering the conquest of China and Buratyia. So I can buy an IC (15) and 8 inf(24).
That makes sense. :-)
The issue is that I am obsessed with the idea of minimize the mismatch between the TRNs available and the land units to transport. It seems to me that “overbuying” is a waste. Saved money, not used to buy a land unit that have no place on a TRN, may be invested in a more useful unit. Basically a land units sticking in Japan is useless.
Moreover 39 IPC on J2 are also useful if Allies are going KJF to strenghten the navy (they are 1 AC and a SUB or TRN).
In my opinion, you should always give Japan 2 IPC’s from the bid to give you the option of building 4 TP’s on J1.
Do you ever get the feeling that inflates the Axis bid, U-505?
If I were to bid so that Japan gets 2 IPCs and also Germany gets enough IPCs to make a difference on their front, the bids would easily be 8-9, while some people are getting away with 6-7. It seems to me to add 2 IPCs to the bid, but what’s your perspective on this?
Also U-505, if you start with a 3 tran build, would you go expanding to Hawaii/Aus anytime soon? When is a good time? Or simply keep them there off of Japan, continually offloading maximum units from Japan each turn?
If you allow me I may also my answer on the argument.
Personally I build even more than 4 TRN. Usually I arrive at 6. For several reasons.
First it allow to retrieve inf from islands, more easy. I usually take away all the inf from the islands near the Japan landing them in Asia, while the more far inf are used to attack, Australia, New Zealand, and Madagascar, using the 5th and 6th TRNs. IMHO Japan have to counter UK predominance on Africa.
This is the way I see it. If Japan may hit hard UK other than advance in Russia, German will be less pressed.
Moreover if and when USA try to build a fleet to advance in Pacific, having a lot of TRNs is useful.
About the first point in our face2face games we are ruthless in stripping IPC away from UK. This is another reason for which our UK players leave the Indian Fleet to counter Japan, otherwise when the fleet is back home Churchill may only scrap it to have the money for buying more inf! :)
1. I don;t save cash as Japan because I have serious build limit issues as Japan early in the game. If I can get 2 units built in Japan on J1 that I will not use on J2, then I have build capacity for something else in Japan on J2, like a FIG or a TRN.
2. The most common J1 builds are:
A. No Bid: 3 TRN, 2 INF
B. 1 IPC Bid: 2 TRN, 1 IC
C: 2 IPC Bid: 4 TRN
2 IC’s on J1 has been pretty much debunked as a viable strat. I think Octo was the only one to have had any success with that as a “novelty” build, but since then it has failed when tried.
Do you ever get the feeling that inflates the Axis bid, U-505?
Not really. I’ve been consistently bidding 5 or 6(1 inf/art Lib $2 Japan) and doing rather well with it. However, the level of competition is rising dramatically here so it may be an obsolete bid for me in the future. For some reason, I haven’t yet been scared of not fortifying Europe somewhere but it can get pretty hairy if Russia has a good first round.
If I were to bid so that Japan gets 2 IPCs and also Germany gets enough IPCs to make a difference on their front, the bids would easily be 8-9, while some people are getting away with 6-7. It seems to me to add 2 IPCs to the bid, but what’s your perspective on this?
The bids have risen recently to 8-9. In the League, anyway. Yet it seems that even with that high of a bid, people are still inclined to not give Japan any of it. Most people appear to be concerned with Germany being hamstrung with a low bid whereas I still see Russia as being the country that needs, at the very least, average dice on round 1 even with no extra German units in Europe. The only thing that really matters to me is that Germany closes the Suez on G1. As far as I’m concerned, it’s far more important to get Japan a good jump out of the gate than it is to slightly reduce Russia’s high kill probablilties in the R1 attacks.
Also U-505, if you start with a 3 tran build, would you go expanding to Hawaii/Aus anytime soon? When is a good time? Or simply keep them there off of Japan, continually offloading maximum units from Japan each turn?
I would hit the Pacific early, yes. With the same amount of force that I do now. Those IPC’s are important to me. Gambling on using minimum force to clean up the Pacific IPC’s is a bad idea since they are so far flung. It would slow me down by 2 units in Asia for a turn, but if Japan isn’t getting any of the bid it means that Germany is getting an extra unit somewhere so it probably offsets the lesser number of Japanese units in Asia. In the end, I’m still most likely building 6 total Japanese TP’s whether or not they are built mostly in J1 or split between J1/J2.
For the record, if I get an 8 bid, I’m placing a TP or SS somewhere and the $2 IPC’s to Japan won’t happen. We placed a Japanese TP on an 8 bid and it bit me in the ass in my last doubles tourney game when, in the first 2 rounds, Russia had really good dice and Germany had horrendous dice, but that was anomalous so I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again. And I would never get or allow a 9 bid, if I could help it. The possibility of allowing your opponent the oportunity to place 3 inf for the Axis is asking for trouble. I’d love to have it but I would hate for my opponent to get it so a 9 bid in one of my games is an impossibility.
I would hit the Pacific early, yes. With the same amount of force that I do now. Those IPC’s are important to me. Gambling on using minimum force to clean up the Pacific IPC’s is a bad idea since they are so far flung. It would slow me down by 2 units in Asia for a turn,
Could you clarify what force you use? I am confused by what I am reading here, on one hand you say don’t use a minimum force, but then it seems like you use 1 tp to clean up the pacific (2 units a turn), which is minimal? I am not seeing it clearly.
