@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
Jap Factories Revisited
-
Assuming India isn’t available, what is your preferred placement for that 1st factory?
-
I voted for Frindo because I prefer a J1 placement. My two main Japanese strategies are to crush the Caucasus or to pressure the Caucasus while landing at Alaska.
With the first strategy, I take Burma J2, build a factory there J3 while also taking India, and then build and India factory there J4. The transports can grab Australia and parts of Africa if possible. I now have 7 build slots in Southern Asia.
Regarding the second strategy of going for Alaska, I only employ that if the U.S. is putting over 90% of it’s money into the Atlantic, and looks vulnerable. I skip the Burma factory, and use at least 4 transports in a swing to drop at least 4 ground units a turn into Alaska. I can then land some fighters there as well.
-
You take Burma J2? Most people here will take Burma J1, and India J2.
A good Japanese player will take Kwa, Bur, Phi, Sum, Bor, and his pick of the Chinese territories, usually two or even three.
It’s not a question of if Japan becomes a monster, it’s when… and the sooner the better :P -
So you leave the Flying Tiger alive, cts17? I see that as being more important first round than Burma.
-
I take a much different approach than most of the community with my J1. I buy an IC on J1 that will go in either FIC or Kiangsu. Buy buying this factory instead of the normal transports I do not have to pull back any ships to cover seazone 62. This leaves me free to set up a hard take of Australia J2. Australia is a NO for Japan and eliminates one for the UK. Also Australia is 2 turns away from the US west coast. This means the US will have to buy ships and then take two turns to get there, meaning it sill be Japanese for at a minimum 3 turns.
While in Revised Japan wanted transports before ICs I think this is reversed in Anniversary. Japan starts with ample transports and has the income to spend on ICs. Also ICs on the MAINLAND of Asia frees up the Japanese Navy for other task. For this reason I do not place Japanese ICs on the Islands except in some very rare circumstances. While my J1 locations are only 2 IPC territories they both have some benefits. With Kiangsu on J2 I can build 2 transports in seazone 61 out of reach of US bombers if I need them. Also this IC along with the one I will build in Manchuria on J2 or J3 depending on board conditions are in Chinese turf. That means Japan can lose them but they can not be used against Japan. FIC allows me to start building a presence quickly in southeast Asia and this is what I have been leaning towards more on J1. Once Burma is secures I will build a factory there as well, and then eventually an IC in India.
Again my thoughts are that Japan can afford to drop ICs all over the place in AA50 if they desire, they certainly have the income for it. With that said I do not like the island locations even if they offer greater production as they tie up Naval assets, both for transport and protection. My take on Japan can bee seen in my test game with Darth. While there is an Allied IC in India, it did not influence my IC placements.
-
Definitely agree Sumatra has its drawbacks–having to divert transports and protect these transports could be too high a price to pay even for such a nice location and a 4 to boot. But I also think its worthwhile for the Japs to invest in transports early anyway.
I hesitate to build a factory on a 2 ipc territory. Of course, Frindo is a strategically vital spot if the USA invades the Pacific.
-
I’m sorry to be bringing back the dead, but this is an interesting topic and I wonder if any of you have come to new conclusions after another year of playtesting?
@44, you’re logic for IC’s in China is sound, I just wonder why you would choose to build an IC in Kiangsu instead of Manch. It really is easy to hold manch J1, and beneficial if Rus sends that inf stack south. Why not bait them and get the added production from Manchuria.
You’re points on the IC in the islands is sound, and I think I will try adapting my Jap strat with IC’s on the mainland. I had not noticed the drain protecting these sz’s had become, but that was because my J fleet tends to be squaring off against US in the pacific and hanging around the area in general. These IC’s can be cut off and become a liability if US ever does move into Pacific in strength.
I tend to send the majority of japanese troops through china, using the Eindies IC to fund the war to capture India. I assume that an IC in FIC supported by the fleet can accomplish the same goal of capturing India and threatening the african coast?
-
FIC is a solid place for a japanese IC when they’re out to get India. Burma is often fought over, but UK can’t really reach (and take + keep) FIC (i often tried), it is too easily extra reinforced with transports from japan. FIC is quite safe.
If Japan invests in transports, then yes, a Sumatra IC can be good as well.
-
I have progressed to an FIC IC on turn 1 in all my games now. It does not take much to overwhelm India any way, so even at 2 units a turn FIC is adequate. Also once transports are servicing Japan one can drop down to seazone 36 to supplement these troops.
I laid out my reasoning for Kiangsu in the above post, sezone 61 is out of reach of US bombers or fighters without Long Range. This can be used to build transports if I need them for Japan. They can also keep cycling from Japan to seazone 61 an unload every turn if need while my Navy takes care of other business.
In most normal games my second IC is in Manchuria because I am maxing out Japan and FIC. My third is usually Burma or India, although I may go for Kiangsu for ships or additional central front troops. I think an IC in Manchuria early is just a waste. Japan is right there and can produce 8 units. Manchuria also serves the same seazone as Japan so there is not tactical advantage there either. All an early Manchurian IC allows for is more troops where Japan should already have its most troops at any way. As far as baiting the Russian’s into something foolish, it looses a turn of production and defending it slows up my attacks against China.
-
If the US is going KGF, then SUM makes a lot of sense. It produces more. Japan has transports to spare. I love buying 2 inf, 2 arm each turn there. Best followed up by ICs in IND (J3 hopefully) and BUR, then the road to CAU.
You can easily push back Russia and China with 2 transports taking people from JPN to the mainland.
-
If the US commits everything to the Pacific, I don’t think you want to buy an IC for a while. Maybe one in India if it looks like Japan is going to be outspending the US by 15/turn.
-
If the US commits everything to the Pacific, I don’t think you want to buy an IC for a while. Maybe one in India if it looks like Japan is going to be outspending the US by 15/turn.
I can not agree with this thinking 100%. I agree with Bigdog that an IC in FIC offers naval purchasing options that might be needed as part of a strategic withdrawal move from an imposing US navy. Also, an IC in FIC gives unit deployment without having to risk any shipping
-
The FIC IC is OK if the US goes 100% Pacific. As a matter of fact I think it is one of the best IC positions in this case. It is harder to lose than any of the island positions. Both of the seazones it serves may also give a safe build spot close to the action. Think putting planes on carriers to maximize those two slots. Also as axis_roll pointed to the FIC IC does not require any naval servicing. If it is not needed for ships it can be producing ground units for South West Asia. The Allies are thin here even with the cluster they start with in India, it will not take many troops to decide this area. This opens up the possibility of an IC in India and these can support themselves.
I do think that akreider2 is correct in that if the US does go 100% Pacific (keep in mind this is how I play Allies) that Japan does need to limit its IC building. I know as the US I love to see a Japanese IC go down in E. Indies on round 2. This is a fixed point that the Japanese navy will have to defend. While FIC is also a fixed point, it can be relived by land, and is more interior, so this reduces its drawbacks in a US PTO game. I think the Key to surviving these as Japan is to avoid having to defend multiple areas that one can not afford to lose. While the islands do matter for IPCs and NOs they can be left for a turn or two in enemy possession if the situation requires it. With an IC at that location it becomes a different consideration an MUST be defended and this is what allows the US to kill Japan.
Suggested Topics
