@AxisOfEvil:
Well Bunny. You certainly add a tone to your posts dont you?
You mean there’s a question about it? :?
:lol:
Very well. I expect you to read this post and comment on it IN DETAIL, Axis. Because if you do not, I shall taunt you a second time! You know what, I’m just going to taunt you anyways. :-P Because it’s fun. :-D
On round 1, I buy 3 trans, and 2 inf. This give me 4, or 5 if the uk was nice enough to save me one!! I buy another tran on round 2. giving me 5-6 trans. on round 3, i buy an IC in the East Indies. and I have my transports in position to shuttle troops round 5+.
First, I don’t think you need to build 2 inf with Japan on J1. I think Japan should build 3 transport 1 tank, but that’s of course with a mainland IC strategy (more at end). With extra transports, you can pull infantry off the Japanese islands, and an early tank that’s dropped at Burytia can redirect south to French Indochina/India quickly (even if you set up a 2 transport to French Indochina/2 transport to Burytia/Manchuria transport shuck to empty Japan of eight units a turn, that early tank lets you redirect from Burytia to French Indochina without disrupting your transport chain adding critical strength to a vital area, or at least will probably let you tank blitz in northeastern Asia. Don’t think “it’s just a tank” either; Japan’s early position in Asia is very weak, and a single tank can make a significant difference on the early turns.
Second, don’t assume UK is stupid. You should never have a “free” transport at Kwangtung at start of J1; either UK killed it, or UK did something else that the UK considered to be better, and again, you’re not assuming UK is stupid. So just why does UK leave the Kwangtung transport alone? Two common reasons; first is unification of UK fleet southwest of Australia, second is Germany failing to take Anglo-Egypt and Indian fleet sailing through the Suez; the first has implications for your Japan game, the second has potentially serious implications for Germany and hence indirectly Japan.
Third, you’re locking into your strategy for rounds two and three without even considering what the Allies are trying to do and what Germany is trying to do. This is a really bad idea. You can make certain predictions and statements about Axis and Allies Revised with accuracy, but saying that an East Indies IC build on Japan turn three is always “right” is NOT one of them. As you will see. :? :?
Pros:
– By round 5, i can shuttle 4 land units into India instead of the 3 a mainland IC gives me.
– I have an IC safe from bombers and safe from land attacks.
– In conjunction with my 6 trans, i have added flexiiblity. I can just use 2 transports to shuttle to india as long as i want too. However, say I want to contend in africa, i can bring two more trans over, and can have four units pumping directly into africa a turn.
So what I’m seeing here is you can shuttle 4 land units into India if the Allies don’t do anything about it. You have an IC safe from bombers if the Allies didn’t hardpoint at India/Sinkiang (bomber in India bombs East Indies then lands in India) which is something you haven’t considered which is something you’ll see in tournament games a lot because of the added victory cities, and in normal games whenever you see a KJF. And you don’t have added flexibility at all. If you have two transports shuttling from East Indies to India, then where’s your flexibility? You have to land in India; you don’t want to shuttle anywhere else in the long term.
As far as I see it, if you’re emptying Japan of eight units every turn, that requires four dedicated transports. You could say that’s a given; you should have 4 transports at the end of J1 in most circumstances. You may have 5 Jap transports, but I will leave that position for now, as it requires either Japanese luck or an Allied counterstrat, both of which change the game considerably.
So if you have four transports required for emptying Japan, then what’s an East Indies industrial complex do for you? Well, you need two dedicated transports for East Indies, right? So that means you’re spending 15 IPC for the industrial complex, 16 more IPC (total 31 IPC) for the transports to get 4 ground units (max 2 infantry 2 tanks) to one location, India, and remember that’s 31 IPC that you can’t use for anything else. Contrast with 30 IPC for two industrial complex that can produce 6 ground units per turn into Asia, and add the flexibility of being able to switch to all-tank production for when you’re making the final push towards Moscow. Not that I WOULD build two industrial complexes, but you can already see how an East Indies industrial complex comes up short. Worried about industrial bombing? Bombing a 3 IPC territory is probably a big waste of a bomber considering how light the Allies are on air to begin with, and if it does prove to be a detriment, you have an antiaircraft gun on Japan that is probably going to be unused, and you can always build another.
Oh, MAYBE you could say that an industrial complex in East Indies is theoretically better to this point. But you still have infantry on Caroline, Solomon, Borneo, New Guinea, and 2 on East Indies, and no extra transport capacity to get them off. Furthermore, with no extra transports, you haven’t taken Australia, you haven’t taken New Zealand, you haven’t taken Madagascar, and you haven’t traded West Canada or Alaska. Furthermore, your dedicated transports have to be at India, which means that you MUST have Japanese fleet there to protect them. So what happens if the United States chooses to build a few units in the Pacific? Then you have to send your battleships east, and how long do two unescorted battleships last against US’s battleship/transport/destroyer/fighters? But wait, you say, you can pull back? Even if you retreat as much as you can, if you want to use both Japanese industrial complexes every turn, you must dump from East Indies to French Indochina and Japan to Kwangtung, which hurts Japan’s position, and you’re STILL splitting your fleet.
Isn’t it FAR more economical to build 6-7 transports, use 4 to empty Japan, and use 2-3 to empty the Japanese islands and attack Allied territory? But wait, you say, what if the Allies build a Pacific fleet? Okay, that is a problem, but after J1, you only have 4 transports, you don’t need to build the other 2-3, and even if the Allies switch to a Pacific strategy, you can move transports away from a threat (unlike an IC), you can use transports as naval fodder (unlike an IC), and you’ve already moved all your infantry out from the isolated islands (unlike the early IC plan you list)
Cons:
– I rely on navy to get units to russia. As japan you do anyway, with the land bridge on the mainland, but this bridge is a little more vulnerable.
– Its costs 31 ipc to deliver 4 units a turn, versus 15 ipc to deliver 3 units a turn.
So if you ALREADY see the problems, then WHY do you do it?
So i guess the conclusion i have to make here to have this approach worthwhile is this: The 16 ipc cost, and setup is worth the extra unit per turn, and added striking power into africa.
As you mentioned, you need another two transports to offload into Africa every turn from East Indies (2 pick up at East Indies and unload in Africa and 2 come back empty from Africa to East Indies. Or 2 pick up at drop to India and 2 pick up at India and drop to Africa, but this requires ANOTHER fleet split.) And isn’t that 47 IPC (4 transports 1 industrial complex) to move 4 units to Africa? That’s REALLY expensive.
I dont think the land forces will be reduced if done correctly. Say i build IC r2. then r3 i build 4 units. r4 i land those units in India. My tran shuck hasnt been disrupted until round 4 when i have to go to EI and grab the equipment. ON round 3, i simply take 1 or 2 trans from the mainland, and drop stuff into FIC. I am in position for the EI drop. I sometimes have 1 tran taking australia that i use, thats why i said 1 or 2 trans from mainland.
So lets compare to an IC in FIC. r2 purchase the IC. rd 3 build units. r4 move to India. So the IC in EI is superior as far as units in Asia. I have 4 units in India round 4, compared to 3 units with the mainland IC. This is why i started looking at this approach. I followed the typical progress of IC in FIC, then one in India. The downside as i said is u have 2 trans dedicated to this shuck. But that may also be a positive at some point in the game, as it give u felxibility and added striking power to Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt
J1 build 3 transport 2 infantry, moves 1 transport pickup Okinawa infantry plus Japan infantry transport drops to Asia.
J2 build IC at East Indies 2 transport at Japan, moves 1 transport to Solomons (no pickup/drop), 1 transport to Caroline (no pickup/drop), 1 transport to Phillipines (pickup 2 infantry), then drop to Asia, 1 transport pickup Wake infantry plus Japanese tank and drop both to Asia.
J3, the Pacific islands are empty, you have six transports, and IPC income will be at 36 soon (it may be already). You need all of your transports to shuttle units from Japan and East Indies to Asia or other points. Those six transports cannot be easily redirected, so your flexibility is now limited; this is particularly important for Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia, and Madagscar early, and important for control of Africa and the Suez Canal later. If you want to increase your flexibility at all, you must now build more transports, but at this time, your income is around 36; building even 1 or 2 transports will force you to build 2-5 less ground units, which negates the advantage of increased production at East Indies. As already mentioned, you already limit your flexibility by putting an industrial complex at East Indies.
Isn’t that EXACTLY what I said when I wrote
Come on, man, an East Indies IC? Srsly? So you have another naval point you need to protect, you have four transports shelling out of Japan, another two transports shuttling East Indies, and you already took Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Alaska plus secured Africa? If you have all that, yeah, blow a wad on an East Indies IC, there’s nothing else to use your transport for.
but using more words? How is my explanation any different now except I went into more detail? You already saw the problems with your plan yourself!
