i think ics that have limited production that get bombed should only lose the max ipcs they can produce(india can only be bombed for 3 ipcs). or they can be bombed for production capability instead.
that does sound like a kinda good idea, but i think it would give the allies yet another advantage that they don’t need. just think… who builds more IC’s, the axis, or the allies? UK sometimes builds IC’s in india, south africa, sometimes even australia, and sometimes US builds one in Sinkinag, or western europe if they take it over. the axis almost never builds IC’s (i guess sometimes Japan does in manchuria, but thats at the end of the game if the axis is clearly winning) maybe it would be an okay rule if you upped the ante on bidding for axis (along with russia restricted)
Related to this topic is idea of allowing a territory to have moe than one AA gun. What is the rationale limiting it to just one?
usually only japan builds ic’s
if uk builds in inda, japan will eventually crush it, and germany breaths easy, usa might build in western, but that is endgame.
As japan, i don’t usually like to build ic’s especially when us and uk bombers are sitting in russia, but japan is the only country that can usually benefit from ic’s
limiting the bombing would help axis, especially since an industry in western wouldn’t limit anything but heavies. industry in australia if almost point less, unless usa goes pacific…
industry in south africa seems silly too, if germany has africa really strong, they will take the complex. if they are weak in africa, you can take it with india infantry and fighter and bomber and stuff. uk starts with alot that can hit africa.
I can’t see Japan building an IC in Manchuria, unless it is using transports to attack east. The US can easily defend against this, and is very costly for Japan to persue. It somewhat stalls any US push into europe or africa, and Japan loses momentum in asia. If Japan builds an IC it should be out of transport range from Japan. I’m in the middle of a game now where I, as Japan, has recently Built an IC in South Africa. Africa is pretty empty, ripe fot the taking. The US or UK could transport troops there, in which case my German brother cheers. I’m sure I digress. i forgot what the original question was, but when i saw IC in manchuria I had to put in my two cents.
NOT ONLY IS BUILDING A COMPLEX IN MANCHURIA OR EVEN KWANGTUNG SMART, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR JAPAN TO HAVE A CHANCE. BUILDING TOE COMPLEX ON THE FIRST OR SECOND TURN IS A MUST TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE ALLIES IN ASIA, AND TAKE SOME OF THE HEAT OFF OF GERMANY. ONCE JAPAN GETS THOSE ARMORS ROLLING IN ASIA RUSSIA IS IN A VICE. I HAVE PROBABLY PLAYED AXIS ABOUT , HELL A SHITLOAD OF TIMES, AND I HAVE YET TO SEE THE AXIS WIN OR JAPAN DO WELL WITHOUT BUILDING INDUSTRIALS. IF THE ALLIED PLAYER IS SMART HE, OR THEY, WILL BUILD AT LEAST ONE OR TWO THEMSELVES IN ASIA, MOER SPECIFICALLY IN INDIA AND EITHER CHINA OR SIKKIANG. EVEN THEN IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD OFF THE LAND OF THE RISING SUN. THE ONLY SMART PLAN FOR THE AXIS IS TO STRIKE AT RUSSIA HARD AND FAST FROM TWO DIRECTIONS. SCREW AFRICA, SCREW AUSTRALIA, SCREW THE U.S., AND SCREW THE BRITS, EXCEPT FOR THE FLEET. BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF THEM.
Hey TM270, I think I see what you are talking about. By the way, I;m the same guest who decried putting an IC in manchuria. I just finished my first game as axis, specifically i was Japan. Although i was highly successful, with Japan having over 50 IPCs, I could not get to mother Russia quick enough. Maybe an IC in Manchuria, churning out tanks, would have solved that problem. I’ll try it the next time.
Me , at my first turn with japan, i always invade China and build a IC on kwangtung. Production is the best way for me. after 5 turn, in average i have at least 2 (or sometimes 3 IC on asia.) I love this variant. (o_0)
Brovo for you Zero. Wipe out the brits, and the usa in asia and your path is clear to invade mother Russia.
@tmz70:
Brovo for you Zero. Wipe out the brits, and the usa in asia and your path is clear to invade mother Russia.
I disagree - take out 1 US territory and 1 Russian on Round 1.
You want to keep enemy forces (those of the allies) from attacking back in Asia. The beft way to do this, in my opinion, is to not have any 1 country strong enough to put together an effective attack.
I’d rather face multiple enemies that are poorly equiped, than 1 army that is moderately equiped.
Dan
After the first turn, the threat of the allies in asia depends on the commitment they make. If they don’t build IC’s and defend them. Then things are alot easier for Japan. For instance, when I play the allies, on russia’s first turn I always take manchuria with force, including my plane from Moscow. the plane is then landed in support of the U.S… It all depends on what your opponent does. But eventually you will wipe them all out with a little luck. Even with their industrials, you can still build on your industrial, in Kwangtung or manchuria, or heck even in french indo. Also you can keep ferrying over troops from the mainland, and don’t forget about all those planes the nips have at their disposal. How long the allies last in asia depends on their commitment, but they should eventually fall.
Off topic, Aren’t you?
Most experienced players would love to play you if you,
as Japan, build an IC that early.
I am my worst nightmare, and I’m currently
taking medication to help you deal with it!
Hey, I have been playing this game since it was invented. I have seen tons of different strategies, and tried lots of different things. My friends are also very experienced players. I never said building an IC early with japan wasn’t risky, but for me the rewards outweigh the risks. besides, when you are the axis, you’re at a disadvantage to start. If you want to play a game that takes forever to play and you will most assuredly lose then that is your choice. I prefer to take the bull by the horns, go balls out and see if evil can prevail! Trust me you do not want to play me. I’m your worst nightmare, because I’m crazy and smart.
