Where to build Japanese factory: Poll Question

[Young Grasshopper]

@EnoughSaid:

Hmm…. I don’t like this question exactly. I always build an IC in French Indo China turn 2, and sometimes it’s the only IC I build for the whole game. But if I was directly forced to only be able to build 1, I’d definitely prefer Malaya real estate.

Thing is, this would also influence opponents, and I’m sure I’d have a much harder time taking it. Knowing I can only build one, I’d actually probably end up building it in Hong Kong for the early tempo of a factory and an upgrade to Major IC down the road. The free port being a factor, as well as it being in perfect proximity for Japanese air (Malaya isn’t, and FIC is one-way only), and even the kamikaze sea zone as nice bonus, too.

(abstaining from Poll)

The question was not meant to suggest that Japan couldn’t build ICs on other eligible territories like Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Manchuria, it’s just a question between FIC, and Malaya if you only got to choose one.

[knp7765]

FIC all the way. It has better access to Chinese territories and like IKE mentioned, if you put a naval base there then you can still strike India.

[variance]

@ghr2:

@variance:

Malaya is too vulnerable to USA can opener and ANZAC landing.  If FIC falls Japan is probably just about done anyway.

It depends, since Japan can block the US, the Anzac usually does not have enough to take Malaya.  3 ground plus a plane or 2 makes it very hard for ANZAC.

True, but its a lot easier that FIC.  Another fun thing with an IC in FIC is if you also built an airbase to take India J3, later on you can use that IC and airbase to build bombers and SBR Moscow with Bryansk as the landing spot.

[ghr2]

FiC is my first choice, Malaya is not terrible, just very situational.

[Young Grasshopper]

The house rule that I am researching and playtesting would allow Japan to build in Malaya, but not FIC.

[KaLeu]

As a general strategy question: suppose that you already built an IC in FIC, and you want to build a naval base as well, would ypu put it in FIC or on Hainan?
Building it in FIC gives Japan only one territory to worry about, but building it on Hainan avoids having one single tempting target for the Allies, and it’s also a little harder to bomb.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Herr:

As a general strategy question: suppose that you already built an IC in FIC, and you want to build a naval base as well, would ypu put it in FIC or on Hainan?
Building it in FIC gives Japan only one territory to worry about, but building it on Hainan avoids having one single tempting target for the Allies, and it’s also a little harder to bomb.

Hainan?… is that a Chinese territory or the Island just off the coast?

[KaLeu]

It’s the island. Like FIC, it only touches SZ 36.

[Witt]

I have seen players use Hainan. I just prefer Indo. Don’t ask me to explain why.

[knp7765]

@Herr:

As a general strategy question: suppose that you already built an IC in FIC, and you want to build a naval base as well, would ypu put it in FIC or on Hainan?
Building it in FIC gives Japan only one territory to worry about, but building it on Hainan avoids having one single tempting target for the Allies, and it’s also a little harder to bomb.

That is a good idea. If the Allies strike, Japan loses either the IC or the Naval Base, but not both.
When I’m trying to plan a surprise strike on India, I often will build a naval base on Hainan. It usually doesn’t end up as much of a surprise since India/ANZAC can clearly see the buildup of Japanese transports next to Hainan, however if I get enough there, it can still work. I can send navy and air to blast any blocker ships then pounce on India next turn. If I have enough transports full of men and equipment, I could possibly still take out India. However, this is usually round 3 or 4 so the US may be threatening my home waters by then.

[WILD BILL]

YG, I guess you are thinking about restricting the ability for Japan to build an IC in FIC. Not sure if you are looking at it from a historical aspect (did FIC have the infrastructure ?, wouldn’t think the French would be able to do much politically speaking), or for game play (FIC IC puts the Japanese in really good position if done early). After the fall of Paris, I know the French allowed the Japanese to bully them into entering FIC early on granting them what was supposed to be limited troop movement (opened the door for a flood), but honestly don’t remember much more about it (guess I’ll have to check that out). I know the invasion of FIC triggered the US oil embargo though, and that’s why the 10 IPC NO was developed in Alpha+1 (I think) to delay the Japanese from taking FIC J1. Even back then Japan getting FIC J1 seemed to give them really good position (for an IC). There are no other consequences to Japan for an invasion of FIC under the political rules. An attack of FIC doesn’t bring the US into the war like an attack on the Britts/Anz does (and it shouldn’t either IMO, I like what comes down to economic sanctions w/10 IPC NO). Maybe your group is charging into FIC J1 on a normal bases, even if they delay the attack on the UK/US, and you are seeing that as a problem?

Back to the poll:
You can’t build on either place J1 (have to take them first), but you could do a J2 IC build w/J1 attack (depending on the axis strat).

I voted FIC for the following reasons.

1. Both places offer the same land moment to India, but the Chinese seem to congregate in Tsinghia for the final battle, and your Japanese mech/tanks can be there in 2 turns from FIC, where Malaya would take 3 turns. For later in the game (once the Chinese are gone) FIC also gives your tanks/mech better accessibility to the Russian back door (2 turns to attack Kazah from FIC, 3 turns from Malaya). It would also be 3 turns for your mech/tanks to hit Moscow from FIC, but 4 turns from Malaya (1 space makes a big difference). Either place would be with in 3 turns to get to Stalingrad though. Depends on your axis strat, and how the US is playing in the Pac.

2. FIC, it is also safer build IMO then Malaya, and a bit harder for the allies to attack/take later in the game. Malaya (sz 37) is one move by sea for the allies from sz54 (Q-land), where FIC (sz 36) takes 2 moves from sz54 (I realize the Japanese can block out etc…, but they could be facing 2-3 allied partners).

3. I also like to build a naval base for sz36 sometimes early in the game on Kwangsi (mainland) or Hainan (island), because from there it is one turn to either India, W Australia, Caroline Is, or back to the Sea of Japan (Malaya doesn’t allow for all of those, kinda like a bridge too far). I also get to use this ability even if I delay attack on the allies (I have to take Malaya to use the naval base). So I may have already built a naval base for sz 36, so dropping a minor IC there later seems right and is a good place to drop navy too (one move to many places mentioned above). I like a secondary place to build Japanese Navy around the DIE, and sz 36 (even w/o naval base) allows me to defend “My Islands”. Add a naval base and you get great flexibility. Plus FIC can also be pretty deadly w/an air base.

As a side note, although you can build navy and protect the DIE as well from a Malayan IC, and would get the use of its free naval base, I think your navy is is more vulnerable off the coast of Malaya.

[Young Grasshopper]

Awesome post Wild Bill, and thanks for your participation… my poll questions have been related to some house rules our group has been play testing and they have since been finalized.

You can find them here complete with video explanation…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34493.0

[WILD BILL]

OK, I took a look at your Cliffside Bunker’s G40 House Rules thread. I now see that these rules would exclude FIC from having a minor factory. Also would take Persia out of the picture (amongst many others), interesting.

As a side note, I guess that the minor French coastal factories would be removed from the game G1 with these rules, so why bother putting them there in the first place?

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

OK, I took a look at your Cliffside Bunker’s G40 House Rules thread. I now see that these rules would exclude FIC from having a minor factory. Also would take Persia out of the picture (amongst many others), interesting.

As a side note, I guess that the minor French coastal factories would be removed from the game G1 with these rules, so why bother putting them there in the first place?

They’re there to honor the original setup and allows me to state that we haven’t removed or added anything from the setup, and that we only changed the type of production units on the territories that already had them. Plus it physically displays how minor factories get removed, while others get downgraded.

[WILD BILL]

Ok, good point, I like how production centers get down graded, and the minor factory gets removed upon capture. Its like a scorch earth policy.

BTW the 42 version of the global game removes the French coastal IC at set-up. I like it that way, seems to have an effect on what Germany does (maybe leave something for Italy). Having them removed also changes the allies strat because they don’t get a free production center on the French coast, and they might try to punch through to Paris because they wouldn’t have anything to lose unless unless they built a minor factory on Southern France (worth 3 IPCs)

[WILD BILL]

Back to your poll:

YG seems it’s overwhelming (27:1) that people prefer FIC over Malaya for a Japanese minor IC build for pretty much the same reasons. Has this influenced your approach?

[Young Grasshopper]

@WILD:

Back to your poll:

YG seems it’s overwhelming (27:1) that people prefer FIC over Malaya for a Japanese minor IC build for pretty much the same reasons. Has this influenced your approach?

Yes… all these recent polls about production in this game has helped me design my house rules, for example: restricting Japan from building an IC in FIC helps to balance the game in a small way that shouldn’t effect things to much. Here are the house rules our group have been playing with some success so far…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34493.0

[knp7765]

@Young:

@WILD:

Back to your poll:

YG seems it’s overwhelming (27:1) that people prefer FIC over Malaya for a Japanese minor IC build for pretty much the same reasons. Has this influenced your approach?

Yes… all these recent polls about production in this game has helped me design my house rules, for example: restricting Japan from building an IC in FIC helps to balance the game in a small way that shouldn’t effect things to much. Here are the house rules our group have been playing with some success so far…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34657.0

So you made a house rule saying Japan can NOT build an IC in FIC? That doesn’t seem right to me.
So is FIC totally restricted from IC builds for all nations? Or just Japan?

[Young Grasshopper]

All nations, there is no victory city and it has an IPC value less than 3 (same goes for Persia).

I know these rules have not gained many fans, but I can’t deny the fun and balance our games have enjoyed lately.

[theROCmonster]

@Young:

All nations, there is no victory city and it has an IPC value less than 3 (same goes for Persia).

I know these rules have not gained many fans, but I can’t deny the fun and balance our games have enjoyed lately.

Don’t know how balanced not being able to build a factory in Persia and not having french factories would be for the allies. I think this actually really hurts the allies a lot. There would be no way to hold the mid east, and it would make it harder to defend Moscow. Granted on the pacific side it helps the allies a little, but in those rules I’d just attack J3 and build a factory in Kiangsu first turn.