Industrial Complexes or Transports for Japan?

[madscientist]

As Japan, invading mainland Asia is often a top priority. But the question remains: should this be done with transports or industial complexes? Two transports cost about the same as an industrial complex. With transports, you can get more infantry into battle, but with industrial complexes you can get more tanks into battle. Tanks can move toward Moscow faster, but infantry holds territory better.

[Dirt Baller]

Usually get at least 5 trns in Japan Sea before buying an ic, if ever.

[FreeTheSlaves]

If I saw Japan investing in a IC without a decent flow of inf via transports, I’d gloat.

Japan just gave my India factory more time as both ICs will have an output of 3 units. Germany will surely lose Africa too early and that’s that.

Japan’s IC is only for armour that are inefficient to transport.

[dezrtfish]

It’s all about timing. You build transports until the time is right to build an IC. Knowing when that time is is the key to winning with Japan.

So it’s realy not a question of witch is right or more important. Their both needed.

[Rommel34]

It’s all about timing. You build transports until the time is right to build an IC. Knowing when that time is is the key to winning with Japan.

So it’s realy not a question of witch is right or more important. Their both needed.

I agree 100%.

[Guest]

One must get reinforcements into the mainland of Asia, yet at the beginning of the game the territories on the mainland are relatively safe. America will build up solely on its navy at first, since it will see your navy as a prominent threat (the only threat to America at the beginning is the Japanese navy and the japanese surrounding China will probably be brushed aside as the cost of an IC is expensive, and it would take several turns to get american transports to china) anyway, as long as you play yer cards right with germany, Russia will focus on germany until forced to juggle with germany and japan. Germany must take Karellia, as it has an IC and will keep Russia spread out thin between Karellia and Caucusus, allowing the smart German player to take both eventually. Japan has no major threat on the mainland at first, tho it is very wise to do away with the americans in china and the british in india, to increase income and be able to focus on the major purpose of occupying the mainland: RUSSIA
as long as the japanese navy is a match for the American navy, land troops in mainland asia can be built moderately, why build transports when one can quickly build an IC and build reinforcements in RUssia and still keep the americans in check, why send your island troops to mainland? instead keep them their so that the americans will be at bay, dont let the americans go island hopping

so in essence, in my opinion one SHOULD build an IC in manchuria and do the stuff i just described, of course the dice and the opponent always influence the outcome, strategy and thought is key

[Dirt Baller]

If the US is building its Pacific fleet as some sort of KJF strategy, then that’s one more reason to build transports to give Japan a bigger navy. Hopefully Japan will have one or more capital ships. Park them in Japan Sea and let the US match your transports.

There is usually no need to evacuate Japan’s islands anyway, usually just the Philippines.

[julianlq]

It is faster to build an IC in Manchuria then transports though, and Japan must begin taking mainland asia fast in order to assist the Germans, who need to secure their victory quickly

[M-4_Sherman]

keep the trannies japan has to start with in the japan sea and use them to ferry troops across to secure Manchuia’s borders before building an IC. you can either conquer the territories around Manchuria, or simply stack it up.

[lnxduk]

not enough poll options ;P
what about buying ic’s when the usa does a pacific strat (I know it’s rare, but it does happen especially if germany is very weak, and japan get’s teks)

[Guest]

I stay away from ICs with Japan because of a fear of tech. If the Allies early on embark upon the production of bombers with smaller stacks of men then its a safe bet they are going to play a tech strategy at which point Japanese ICs become a liability to the Axis. Transports are a safer route, but I will put down a few ICs if I am closing in on M84 by round 5-6, and 6 tanks might help secure a few extra Ipcs to help achieve that objective.

[Guest]

Well, the transports are then as attackable for the bombers as anything else, and getting them killed is as crippling as having no money left to buy anything.

[Guest]

Assuming America has Heavies Japan can still defend its fleet for at least a few turns with 2bb cv 2ftrs. Japan can even purchase an additional carrier to help in this. But it isn’t certain that American Heavy bombers could reach the sea of Japan assuming Japan has pushed Russia back to Moscow. At the very least transports give Japan a few turns to roll tech in reponse to American heavy bombers, but when Japan has a few ICs on the board America can immediately nuke the Japanese.