Transports vs Factories

[thespaceman]

What do people think is the best option (mostly for US) to get boots on the ground in Europe or Asia, factories or transports?

If factories where do you put them?

[calvinhobbesliker]

You need transports to get factories. And all factories you conquer or build will be minors, so you still need transports.

[Charles de Gaulle]

Here is a generic way to play it:
But transport
When given an opening take some of mainland Europe.
If there isn’t a factory, build one if you can defend it.
Meanwhile, your transports are heading back for more troops.
More recent transport are arriving on the beaches to bolster the troops being deployed by the factory.

As the US I am almost always buying transports, but given the chance to buy a factory, I certainly will.  Be sure to reuse your old transports if you have offloaded.

Of course, this is all assuming that you successfully reached mainland Europe and believe you can really hurt the Axis by holding that land or attacking from it.

[thespaceman]

Would it worth it for Japan to build a major factory in China T2. (assuming they have the 30 IPCs?

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@thespaceman:

Would it worth it for Japan to build a major factory in China T2. (assuming they have the 30 IPCs?

A: No

It must be an originally owned territory to place a MIC for Japan in China.

TT’s are the best way in the beginning stage of the game to deploy new units onto the board and provide reinforcments in a specific area.

An IC in Brazil for example looks nice ant tempting but it is not worth the cost.
Three TT’s via shuck shuck from EUS to Gibraltar deploying more troops then an IC off of Brazil.

As for Japan you need to protect your TT’s, they are the 2nd most value units in the Pacific for Japan.

[thespaceman]

So does the coastal strip count as chinese and not japanese. (Except korea)

Therfore small factories only in those areas with the blue stars

[Charles de Gaulle]

You are correct.  All territories withstand the Chinese roundel are originally Chinese and off-limits to major factories.  But the Chinese coast is great for building factories.  For Japan, transports are indispensable, but they must be protected.  Often you cacti get away with shucking troops from Japan to Jehol/Shantung/Kiangsu with transports, but a problem arises when enemy ships or bombers are in range.  Factories solve this problem.

With Japan, I always recommend transports and at least one Chinese factory (I also prefer one or two more in Southeast Asia).  Japan’s use of transports for reinforcing the mainland mostly relies on whether or not you can escort those transports at the sacrifice of the main fleet.

[taamvan]

Transports add a per unit premium of 3.5 each.  About 50%+ of the time, its a one-way trip and they get sacked.

This makes landed infantry worth nearly 7 TUV and tanks at 10.5TUV.    Even if you take two trips per lifetime, its still $5 per unit delivered.

That’s why fighters and bombers seem so much more efficient, they just fly over without the surcharge.  But they can’t take land or hold land.

Since transports don’t defend, you can simply reduce the cost if you want to facilitate their use, but it benefits USA GER JAPAN UK and doesn’t help the powers that don’t go to the sea (RUS).

Factories have a more complex analysis, some will pump out 10+ (so about a $1 surcharge) units over the course of the game, but in most cases, the units are still remote in TIME, not cost, from the battlefield.  This is why the Russian/India factories are so fought over–they pour right onto the front.

So, Transports offer awful value, but they are indispensable for certain powers.  Factories offer great value, but the placement rules are limited to positions that are often still 1-2 turns from the battle.

Since some teams start with absurd unit production limits (30, 23, 19 etc.) the most effective strategy is not to build any factories tech or bases at all, since they all have a cost whereas using what you start with puts 100% of your cash on the board in the form of units.

[simon33]

I once tried a game as Japan to not build factories as Japan and it was a terrible idea. Factories are far superior - you need at least two, Shantung and FIC for my money. For USA, factories are quite difficult to get pumping out units. As others have said, if it is possible you usually should do it.

Not sure which other powers the question is relevant for.

[thespaceman]

Yeah. Basically for us. Thinking about attacking norway around turn 4-5. Then build factory there. British can land troops and planes to defend it. Follow it with factory in finland. Pump out tanks to punch germans out of leningrad.

On the other side of the world running us troops across from alaska to korea to set up a factory there . The 18 russians walk in to defend. Plus half a dozen us fighters. This should help out chinese and brits.

The other one is uk- persia. But that depends on what is happening around london.

Italy could build a minor in egypt if they were going well enough.

Thats about it.

[WILD BILL]

@thespaceman:

So does the coastal strip count as chinese and not japanese. (Except korea)

Therfore small factories only in those areas with the blue stars

paceman, I see that from previous posts you understand that the Japanese are limited to building minor ICs on the coastal territories in Asia (Korea is the only territory that would support a major for Japan). So the Japanese can build minor ICs on captured Chinese (which they start with), British, and French territories that are worth at least 2 IPCs.

I just wanted to point out that if the Japanese build a minor IC on an original Chinese territory, and the allies liberate that territory, the minor IC is removed from the board not captured (the Chinese don’t use ICs, and the capture capital rules don’t apply to them). In mid to late game any Japanese IC in Asia will become a target for the allies to slow down Japanese production in Asia. This is bitter sweet for Japan because it sucks that the they can lose the IC, but at least the allies can’t use it to build units either. Sometimes the allies will invade a Chinese territory w/IC knowing they can’t hold it, just to remove the Japanese production center.

Obviously captured British territories or FIC are also good spots for Japan to build a minor on, and some even come with ports. It is worth noting though that if liberated these ICs could be pumping out allied units, including US units in some cases (depending on what capitols are in axis hands).

[taamvan]

“Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not captured)
territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.”

“If a Japanese industrial
complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is
later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied
power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”

I think this means you can put also major on Manchuria and Kwangsi, right?  They are definitely “originally controlled” but also “Chinese territory” so they do burn down…but I think you can put them on those two.  Could be wrong, just don’t see another qualifier in the rules.

[General 6 Stars]

I like minors in Shantung and FIC. This way if there’s naval and airbases there you can always drop 3 planes or 3 ships or 3 fast movers at each of theses IC . Gives you more faster options if need be.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@taamvan:

“Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not captured)
territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.”

“If a Japanese industrial
complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is
later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied
power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”

I think this means you can put also major on Manchuria and Kwangsi, right?  They are definitely “originally controlled” but also “Chinese territory” so they do burn down…but I think you can put them on those two.  Could be wrong, just don’t see another qualifier in the rules.

They’re considered originally Chinese buy occupied by Japan. If the game started in 1930 instead of 1940, China would own all of them, including Manchuria.

[WILD BILL]

@taamvan:

“Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled (not captured)
territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.”

“If a Japanese industrial
complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is
later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied
power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”

I think this means you can put also major on Manchuria and Kwangsi, right?  They are definitely “originally controlled” but also “Chinese territory” so they do burn down…but I think you can put them on those two.   Could be wrong, just don’t see another qualifier in the rules.

I think you meant Manchuria and Kiangsu because they are both worth 3 IPCs, but no Japan can’t build a major on them because they are Chinese original territories that Japan has captured before the game starts (they have Chinese emblem).

[taamvan]

Got it.  Seems like its never come up except in schemes.

[WILD BILL]

One other Chinese rule is that say the Japanese build a naval and/or air base on an original Chinese territory (Chinese emblem on it). We will use Kwangsi (adjacent to sz36) as an example because Japan often times will build an air base/naval base on Kwangsi to extend the range of ships and air units (to amphib India). If Kwangsi is liberated the base(s) stays on the map and the allies can then use these bases as long as they are functional (have not been bombed out w/SBR). So a Chinese air base would extend the range of allied air units and the flying tiger +1, and allow the other allies to scramble to the sea (flying tiger can’t scramble because it can’t leave the mainland). A Chinese naval base would extend allied ships +1 in movement and be able to repair ships there as well (of course China can’t build ships). However China is not allowed to repair its newly acquired bases, so if they are SBR’d and non functional then they can’t be used or fixed by the allies. In the event that the Japanese recapture’s one of these bases Japan could repair and use it again (kinda weird LOL).

[simon33]

China can’t repair bases because it can only spend its IPCs on infantry and artillery. Interesting.

@thespaceman:

Italy could build a minor in egypt if they were going well enough.

Umm, Italy shouldn’t be holding Egypt.

@thespaceman:

Thinking about attacking norway around turn 4-5. Then build factory there. British can land troops and planes to defend it. Follow it with factory in finland. Pump out tanks to punch germans out of leningrad.

On the other side of the world running us troops across from alaska to korea to set up a factory there . The 18 russians walk in to defend. Plus half a dozen us fighters. This should help out chinese and brits.

I like the USA on Norway and I target US3 to achieve it. Germany can probably dislodge the first landing but needs to take some focus off USSR to do so. I suppose UK help might allow USA to hold it but they usually don’t have that much money in games I’m playing and normally the RAF is non existent or near to it on London because I like scrambles and Taranto. Hmm, perhaps UK should prioritise building planes UK2 rather than a Mid East IC with this strategy.

I don’t like the idea of landing USA on Soviet Far East and walking across to Korea. Very slow, minimum impact. US should be focusing on neutralising or sinking the IJN. Once that’s gone it is very difficult for Japan to hold its income. If you can amphibiously hit Korea and reinforce with USSR, that’s a pretty good plan but doesn’t stop Japan, only slows them down a little bit.

[PainState]

Well, the best way for Japan to get troops on the ground in South East Asia is minor factories. Japan can get units into Northern China from SZ6 from Japan. Every turn then can dump X troops (MAX 10 troops) from Japan into Manchuria for free as long as you have the TRS lift capacity.

The USA on the other hand really has no choice but to use TRS to move troops across the globe, thus it requires a plan.

Here are the 3 most common plans the USA comes up with.

#1 The GHG Southern France TRS shuck plan of attack.

Floating Bridge Plan of Attack

So, this is how that one works. USA has 5 TRS on East Coast USA, 5 TRS in SZ91 and 5 TRS in SZ93 off the coast of France. You can then “Shuck” 5 Inf + 5 “other units” every single turn into S. France. It is the only place on the map the USA can do this particular plan of attack.

So SZ101 moves 10 Troops to SZ91 and drops off. Next turn you build 10 units in Eastern USA. Following turn you move the 10 troops from Gibraltar from SZ93 to Southern France and the next 10 units move from SZ101 to SZ91…Rinse and repeat forever. Always bringing 10 units every turn into Europe.

It is very effective and also gives you some flex if you so desire to pivot from SZ91 to Oslo or Rome. SZ91 is the most powerful SZ in the game, USE IT.

#2 the Norway option

So we have 3 TRS in E. USA, 3TRS in Iceland to shuck back and forth. Now we have 3 TRS in Iceland and 3 TRS in SZ125 off the coast of Norway. So it is a 12 TRS “shuck” to move 3 INF + 3 other units. It requires 2 turns to prime this shuck. Now the nice thing is once you take Norway you can put a minor on it, keep shucking 6 units + the 3 build units from the minor.

IMO the downfall of the Norway plan of attack is that it is not a direct attack on Germany and in essence they can ignore it for a few turns and focus on beefing up Russia in the north to contain it.

NOTE: You can go to SZ91 instead of Iceland but it does require you to build a port in Norway to perform this “shuck” and a delay of one turn to build the port.

#3 the Spanish Beach Head

The easiest way to get troops on the ground in W. Europe but is does break the neutrals. � Real simple, 5 TRS in SZ91 and 5TRS in SZ 101, shuck 10 units into Spain every turn + the minor factory you can build in Spain.

This is actually more powerful than the GHG option #1 and it includes the UK into the plan. The UK can shuck from SZ109 to SZ104 every turn and drop up to 10 units a turn from London onto Spain on a single move shuck.

So, in theory the USA + UK could drop 30 INF in one turn on Spain. 10 INF from E.USA, 10 INF from C.USA and 10 INF from England. And do that every turn if the Axis cannot retake Spain, plus the three units USA builds on the Factory.

When it comes to the Pacific the plans of attack are based on the same principals.

W. USA to Hawaii, Hawaii to Caroline or Queensland. Queensland/Caroline to Philippines. So it is a 3 leg shuck. So lets plan on 3 TRS shucking 6 units a turn. You would need 18 TRS to fill the shuck supply line.

[thespaceman]

The whole thing I am trying to do with US is about the Speed of getting troops to the front lines.

That’s why we have been playing around with the Northern route to SFE. The southern route to say Phillipines requires 18 transports to get 6 units into the combat zone. The northern route requires only 3 and can be active T2.

The T2 push to SFE also threatens an amphibious assault on Japan on T3. This would have
1 STR
6 FTR on 3CV
1 BB
2 CG
2 INF
2 MEC
1 TANK

This means that Japan has to react or they will be in big problems. If Japan DOW on T1 you can add in an extra MEC and 2 INF.

I cant see an 18 TRN convoy working before T7-8 at the latest. I would rather build Tanks Infantry and planes with all that cash

I  am happy to let Japan grab those 30 if it means I can get US boots on the ground. ANZ and UK will be able to regrab at least one of those islands which will cost Japan 9.

On the Euro side all those ideas are excellent.