well i don’t mean double on J1, but what about maybe two or three turns later add another one? that could work, although, yes, it would take a longer time to get those troops going.
To be honest…
The second IC is not needed until Japan hits their build limit with the first 2 IC’s… 8 units Japan, 3 FIC.
With an IC in J1 (though I prefer J2 and try to get that IC in India), and tranny builds for Japan early, Japan can drop 4 INF, 4 ARM via TRN anywhere along the Pacific rim… SFE, Bury, Manch, Kwang, FIC… and still return to fill up again and drop the same 4x4 the next turn. Add in 3 ARM from FIC, and you are talking 42 IPC’s worth of units.
It takes Japan a while to build up to that level of income (substituting ART for ARM from Japan while income is in the high 30’s) so that they need a 3rd IC.
Even then, mixing up the build… saving IPC’s to add a FIG or a BOM every few rounds, may be a more optimum way to go, rather than dumping the IC’s into a second mainland IC.
Of course, for those who prefer to mass INF, then yes, 2nd and even 3rd IC’s is a good idea. But, even though I failed to adequately counter that move in two previous games (credit to Octo), I still feel it is sub-optimal to a more balanced offensive punch of INF w ART/ARM support sent in via TRN from Japan.
for starters, I believe that an IC in India is the best way to go…
if this will not be possible on J2, then I prefer an IC in FIC.
I will not build my first IC in Kwantung…
I myself am still in doubt about building a 2nd IC…
I believe that building a 2nd IC on J3 or J4 is strategically worth the trouble (in reply on the subject of General D. Fox and ncncswitch)
OK, you have to take a 15 IPC drain out of the J economics, that’s true.
but after that, you have 3 units 1 turn in advance…
so, you can get your units in the line of fire one full turn sooner…
without the extra IC: if you buy units on JX, they will be on the mainland on JY and they will be in the line of fire on JZ.
with the extra IC: you buy them on JX, and they will be in the line of fire on JY…
so, the allies know what they will be facing 2 turns in advance, while with the IC they will only know one turn in advance…
ncscswitch has a point, put I believe it is better to build a second IC as soon as possible…
But you DON’T get teh 3 units a trun ahead of where they would have been.
15 IPC’s is 3 ARM.
If you have already built your 3 trannies (plus your starter), then you can spend those 15 IPC’s on 3 ARM instead of an IC. Then the first round that you could have built with the IC, tose same 3 ARM are offloaded from TRN’s to Manch, or FIC, or Manch OR BURY OR SFE.
So you still get the same 3 units (actually more with the TRN’s since you probably had an INF with each of the ARMs) in the same exact time.
BUT, you are still more flexible with the TRN’s since they can offload ANYWHERE (and in something like 8 different territories along the Asia rim and in the Pacific) and STILl get back to Japan for another load the next round. The IC can produce in only 1 territory…
So… you build 1 IC early (I like the J2 India build, FIC is the alternate) so that you do not run into build limits right away, and then you max out your Tokyo then your India/FIC IC. ANd if you are STILL running into build limits… CONGRATS! Japan is kikcing some serious butt! Time now to place a 2nd IC… perhaps somewhere in the vanguard of your massive gains… Egypt? Novo? Sinkiang? instead of back along the coast… several moves from the action…
I see your point, ncscswitch :-)
nonetheless: I am still in doubt
it needs more coordination and thinking in advance if you don’t build that 2nd IC…
but, it’s true:
if you can keep the math clear in your head, it’s better not to have that 2nd IC in J4 or J5
and only build it when you reach your supply limit…
for me it’s much easier to built that extra IC and only keep track of the building limits there, rather than do the math on the trannie limits :-P
it’s easier, but it’s not strategically better :-o
the nice thing about mainland IC builds is you can go into deep water with your fleet or bounce it around africa/alaska as a distraction and still be sending units into asia or use it to supplement your IC mainland production. 1 IC in kwang and four trannies and you are sending 3 units/turn into china and 4/turn into both FIC and bury.
even with all that the FIC IC is still strategically better than kwang (imho) but it is also a much more tired and worn strat being a standard J1 for me since the earliest days of classic. new is always fun for our group and if i do pull japan next game (i have been chomping at the bit to do so for SEVERAL months now) i am going kwang IC J1 just to see what it presents.
I don’t necessarily agree with not buying an IC for japan 1st or 2nd turn. Â Sure that is three armors, but you still need to invest in trannies to get them over to the mainland, not to mention you can only transport two tanks at a time on two trannies which cost 1 more than one industrial complex. Â With a build in indochina I can now automatically put three armors there next turn which have access to the china/sian passage or can harass britian in india. Â Britan now has to decide if they are going to try and hold india or if they are just going to give it up. Â If they try to hold it most will build an IC there and that will eventually fall, and if they don’t try to hold it I now can dominate a straight passage to the caucauses as well. Â I actually might try that next game. I have been building an IC on turn 2 in china with japan and immediately going for three trannies on j1 but next time I am actually going to try going 1 trannie j1, 1 IC, and then 2 infantry. And to the topic creator I have tried blding an ic in kwang and I feel it is inferior to the FIC build.
the kwang IC is best when UK is foolish enough to put one in india for you
Oh without doubt… if you are going to be gifted with an India IC, then by all means, put one in Kwang or Manch :-)
The problem with an IC in one of the coastal territories (not being India…)?
it has no AA to start with!
if you play the rules by the book:
if you build an IC (without an AA) and you would be strategically bombed?
you would lose 1 die roll of IPC’s for every bomber, but every die roll would be limited to the territories IPC value.
so, if you build an IC in Kwangtung and UK placed his bomber in SB range on UK1?
this means you will lose an average of (1+2+3+3+3+3)/6 = 2,5 IPC’s per bomber as long as you don’t put an AA there!
as long as UK hasn’t got himself an offense land force with enough cannon fodder to protect the bomber to be taking as casualty, he will not need the bomber elsewhere…
so, actually, your IC on the mainland (if not placed on India) would cost you 20 IPC’s to be save…
('cause I don’t think it would be wise at all to SB when an AA is present)
Most people use LHT 1.1 with says that an area cant lose more IPC´s then it´s worth in a turn, regardless of how many bombers engage it.
So on UK Turn you can only bomb 3 IPC away from Japan (regardless of the number of bombers sent.).
The US may bomb 3 from Japan in it´s turn and so on…
Japan is worth 8 :)
I don’t think Japan is ever in a situation where it needs to worry about SBR on mainland ICs. If your playing with LHTR rules then you lose barely any IPC’s a turn. If your playing with standard rules you still shouldn’t worry because if Britain has that many bombers AND he’s using them against Japan, then Germany got a huge break and shouldn’t have much naval competition. Also, after J4ish most bombers will be out of range anyways, I think.
Industrial Complexes for Japan is worthless.
Don’t be fooled by their propaganda!
This from the man who drops either 2 the first round, or 1 a round until he has the continent LITTERED with Japan IC’s :-P
Lies! Nothing but LIES!!!
