Build 2 Japanese ICs round one?

[Quijote]

The principal idea behind building 2 ICs early on is that I would not need to shuck any additional troops to Asia from Japan. With 6 land units (mostly tanks) built in my ICs each turn, the extra IPCs would be spent on planes, subs or destroyers.

[axis_roll]

@Quijote:

The principal idea behind building 2 ICs early on is that I would not need to shuck any additional troops to Asia from Japan. With 6 land units (mostly tanks) built in my ICs each turn, the extra IPCs would be spent on planes, subs or destroyers.

that’s 30 that’s almost the equivilant of 4 transports.  4 transports move 8 units, IC’s drop only 6 (albeit, could be 6 tanks, where 4 transports could only move 4 tanks)

I guess if the allies are not pressuring Japan with USSR/UK, this might not be a bad play.

IC’s are fixed, whihc commits Japan to defending certain territories, which can be determinental.

[Quijote]

I think it would be very difficult for USSR and UK to effectively pressure Japan if the latter is pumping out 6 tanks per round directly on the continent.

As for the previous points: I guess the viability of this strategy depends primarily on how quickly the US is willing / able to build up a fleet that is large enough so that it can’t be attacked by Japan. My guess is it would take at least 4 turns for such a fleet to be in a position to threaten Japan or the money islands, by which time Japan should be ready for a decisive push towards Moscow (having built 12 arm, 4 art and 2 inf in its Asian ICs, and added at least 6 inf from Japan and the islands).

[jsp4563]

@Quijote:

I think it would be very difficult for USSR and UK to effectively pressure Japan if the latter is pumping out 6 tanks per round directly on the continent.

As for the previous points: I guess the viability of this strategy depends primarily on how quickly the US is willing / able to build up a fleet that is large enough so that it can’t be attacked by Japan. My guess is it would take at least 4 turns for such a fleet to be in a position to threaten Japan or the money islands, by which time Japan should be ready for a decisive push towards Moscow (having built 12 arm, 4 art and 2 inf in its Asian ICs, and added at least 6 inf from Japan and the islands).

If the US is building up a pacific fleet Japan won’t be able to pump out 6 tanks and build ships to counter the US build up.

[Quijote]

What I am trying to say is that even with minimal or no additional Japanese navy builds in the early rounds, it won’t be before turn 4 that the U.S. will have a fleet that is big enough and in a position to really worry Japan.

Think about it: Suppose the U.S. produces all fleet in rounds 1 to 32, and when strong enough moves them towards the Solomons. At the beginning of its turn 4, it will have its initial fleet plus the builds of turns 1 and 2 sitting in sz 46 ready to strike. In the most extreme case, that will be 82 IPCs worth of ships - e.g. 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 des, 1 sub.

Assuming the initial fleet off Pearl Harbour was destroyed, that is still not enough to dare to venture into Japanese waters, unless they want to risk being wiped out by the Japs at an unfavourable loss rate, and having to waste another couple of turns rebuilding while most of Japan’s capital ships will have survived.

Anyway, this is turning into a discussion of who achieves naval superiority and when. That’s interesting, but to me the key question is: Am I better off spending the 30 IPCs and being able to produce 6 land units in Asia from turn 2 on (meaning I don’t have to rely on transports, and therefore do not have to worry that much about the US fleet), or spending the money on transports instead (which need to be guarded and may be sunk)?

[newpaintbrush]

I already mentioned in another thread why I think ICs for Japan are bad for J1.  Sorry, I would normally rewrite, but am at work, so can’t take the time XD

Anyways - basically, you sink a lotta IPCs into factories that can’t fight.  You need those IPCs for fighters to fight off the US.

My standard is - NO ICs in Asia on J1, MAYBE 1 IC on J2.  Beef up infantry and tanks.  If the Allies concentrate at Ssinkiang, blow through India.  If the Allies concentrate at Ssinkiang, defend at Frindochina and blow through Ssinkiang.

It is so horribly expensive for the Allies to defend both.  If the Allies try to defend both, Germany should hand them their asses.

You use infantry and tanks, because tanks can redirect from Ssinkiang to India (vice versa)

If you use infantry and artillery, you risk getting your infantry taken out on a hit and run, and you can’t change the direction of your major attack.  You also don’t have IPCs because you spent so much on factories.

[DarthMaximus]

The 6 units from 2 IC’s won’t be enough.

Russia starts with 2 inf each on Yak, SFE, and Bury with more in Eve, Novo, Kaz.  I’ll typically retreat one ter each turn to end up with around 8 inf in Novo.  Now add in the 2 US inf in Sin and you are already at 10 inf without adding anything from purchases.

UK also has inf in Trj, Per, and Ind that can also be retreated to Cauc/Kaz if need be.

The earliest those 2 IC’s can get tanks into the range of Kaz/Novo is rd 4.
Rd 1 - buy IC
Rd 2 - place arm
Rd 3 - get arm to Sin

This gives the Russia 4 turns to prepare and they’ll most likely be earning ~26 for the first 4 turns, that is 4 arm and 28 inf of their own just through purchases.  Throw in the 10 inf on Novo plus possible UK ftrs and it is going to take much more then 6 arm a turn to get Russia to flinch.

If you go inf/rt on J2 that means Russia has until rd 5 before worrying about a serious threat on Kaz/Novo.

I like the flexibility of trns b/c from Fic you can not only always threaten a landing in Afr, but jump inf from Fic to Per, while my IC on Man builds tanks and then a later IC on Sin can build tanks directly in range of Mos.

I find to take down Russia you need to be getting about 12-14 units to Asia a turn (for a good 3-4 rds in a row, at least).

[squirecam]

@Quijote:

Think about it: Suppose the U.S. produces all fleet in rounds 1 to 32, and when strong enough moves them towards the Solomons. At the beginning of its turn 4, it will have its initial fleet plus the builds of turns 1 and 2 sitting in sz 46 ready to strike. In the most extreme case, that will be 82 IPCs worth of ships - e.g. 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 des, 1 sub.

Your assumption about turn 4 is where the problem lies.

USA has BB, DD and transport, plus 2 AC + Fighter USA 1.

USA moves to solomons USA2. UK3 adds at solomons with UK India fleet.

Japan has (with transport buy and no losses), 2BB, 2 AC, 6 fighters, Bomber, sub, DD 4 transports. O=37.

USA/UK has BB, 3 carriers, 4-5 fighters, 2DD, 1-2 subs, 2-4 transports. D = 40-46

USA can attack DEI, Borneo, Phils USA 3.

Squirecam

[jsp4563]

Quijote-

The problem with your strategy is that you assume the US is going for Naval Superiority in order to destroy the Japanese fleet.  The US need only build a fleet strong enough to deter a direct attack by Japan while they move to secure the IPC rich Islands in the South Pacific.  Remember fleets are much stronger on defense.  Without additional naval builds by Japan, a Japanese attack on the US fleet will result in Heavy losses.  The US can afford to rebuild, Japan can’t.  It also ignores the UK Indian Ocean and Australian fleets, and all the ground forces the allies have in Asia.

[Sankt Hallvard]

Yeah, yeah, KJF is very scary…  :roll:

Ok, so the US doesn’t have to build a fleet strong enough to take out the jap fleet. Then why would Japan bother to bolster their fleet? US takes some islands, so what? What stops Japan from taking the islands back as the US hops around? Ok, so they pop an IC. What now, 4 units a turn? Scary.

Meanwhile Germany should have cut off any allied supplies to Russia using the atlantic. Japan will be able to prevent any reinforcements through the pacific. That means Russia is left alone trading territories with Germany and Japan both while Germany gathers strength for the final blow.

Any great strat always come with a drawback.

[squirecam]

@Sankt:

Yeah, yeah, KJF is very scary…  :roll:

Ok, so the US doesn’t have to build a fleet strong enough to take out the jap fleet. Then why would Japan bother to bolster their fleet? US takes some islands, so what? What stops Japan from taking the islands back as the US hops around? Ok, so they pop an IC. What now, 4 units a turn? Scary.

Meanwhile Germany should have cut off any allied supplies to Russia using the atlantic. Japan will be able to prevent any reinforcements through the pacific. That means Russia is left alone trading territories with Germany and Japan both while Germany gathers strength for the final blow.

Any great strat always come with a drawback.

What makes you think USSR is left alone?

UK still helps through Norway. UK can have an India complex, and USSR/UK can gain mainland manchuria/FIC income.

DEI, Borneo and Phils = 11 IPC
Mainland = 9

Japan cannot just easily afford to lose those islands and maintain an attack on Russia.

Squirecam

[jsp4563]

@Sankt:

Yeah, yeah, KJF is very scary…  :roll:

Ok, so the US doesn’t have to build a fleet strong enough to take out the jap fleet. Then why would Japan bother to bolster their fleet? US takes some islands, so what? What stops Japan from taking the islands back as the US hops around? Ok, so they pop an IC. What now, 4 units a turn? Scary.

Meanwhile Germany should have cut off any allied supplies to Russia using the atlantic. Japan will be able to prevent any reinforcements through the pacific. That means Russia is left alone trading territories with Germany and Japan both while Germany gathers strength for the final blow.

Any great strat always come with a drawback.

So now you advocate a third IC, that’s a lot of ducats on industrial capacity, where are your fighting forces?  In order for Japan to concentrate on a push towards Moscow, their rear areas must be secure, if they have to battle in the pacific they can’t concentrate their forces in Asia.  Remember, Japan MUST expand in Asia to grow their Income, they can’t if they’re bogged down in the Pacific.  The bulk of Russian income is far from the Japanese front lines, if Japan can’t pressure Russia early on Germany is doomed.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@squirecam:

What makes you think USSR is left alone?

UK still helps through Norway. UK can have an India complex, and USSR/UK can gain mainland manchuria/FIC income.

DEI, Borneo and Phils = 11 IPC
Mainland = 9

Japan cannot just easily afford to lose those islands and maintain an attack on Russia.

Squirecam

You’re doing something wrong if Japan is down 9 on mainland and 11 on islands. With an indian complex UK will not be sending troops through norway, landing there but not sending anything past. If you add russian forces to the assault then certainly Japan will have a tough time but so will Russia when Germany comes knocking.

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@jsp4563:

So now you advocate a third IC, that’s a lot of ducats on industrial capacity, where are your fighting forces?  In order for Japan to concentrate on a push towards Moscow, their rear areas must be secure, if they have to battle in the pacific they can’t concentrate their forces in Asia.  Remember, Japan MUST expand in Asia to grow their Income, they can’t if they’re bogged down in the Pacific.  The bulk of Russian income is far from the Japanese front lines, if Japan can’t pressure Russia early on Germany is doomed.

If faced with a KJF I certainly wouldn’t buy 3 ICs, what gave you that idea? I advocate 1 IC regardless and more eventually as income allows(which probably means never in a KJF).

I disagree with Germany being doomed if Japan doesn’t make an early push. In a KJF Germany will almost certainly control all of Africa and likely block allied landings in Europe. Japan can settle for holding their original territories and trading the adjacent ones. Most likely India will fall and the russian frontline will be at yakut. Trading sinkiang/china. That’s down 12 and up 8-10. Not counting the possibility to trade islands.

[axis_roll]

@Sankt:

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

Hmmm… many allied players make the decision to GO KJF only when Japan have poor dice or the allies have the hot hand.

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@axis_roll:

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

I agree with KJF being a conditional strategy that can work. But the thing is that if you go for it you need to commit whole-heartedly, anything less is just assigning resources to a sub-optimal area. If you allow Germany to grow and notice that your KJF is failing by good counters or poor dice it’s irreversible. Usually poor Japan dice is a gift for the allies to succeed with the KGF, why risk the advantage for a KJF?

I’ve found I quite often attack a juicy Bury(1-6 inf with small/no chance to counter) rather than take out the pearl fleet. I’m still waiting for someone to exploit that with a KJF. Nix had a go recently but he went for the naval superiority as well. On the other hand CC sent the ships to the atlantic and that became a bigger problem for me than having them sail around in the pacific.

[squirecam]

@axis_roll:

@Sankt:

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

Hmmm… many allied players make the decision to GO KJF only when Japan have poor dice or the allies have the hot hand.

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

To ST: I have been successful at KJF for quite a while. And against skilled tournament opponents.

But AR is certainly correct, IMHO. For the most effective KJF, you need to start and plan USSR 1. Because of this, you will perform certain moves, and not do others. The simplest change is no UKR attack (You need those tanks). But there are others. USSR position on USSR1 is key.

Yes, this gives Germany a clue as to what you are doing. But while you can KJF after Germany has gone, you have lost the ability to take advantage of early Japanese mainland weaknesses by waiting with USSR troops.

What I dont agree with is that it is “less optimal”. Certainly, given tournament conditions, KJF is valuable, but IMHO it is effective in time limited games or to 10-12 VC games.

[What you would like to do is Give USSR/UK the chance for breakthrough, either Manchuria or FIC income. Of course, should USSR take FIC, UK can roll into Kwang behind it.]

As to an IC, off of 30 IPC, UK can spend 11 IPC in India (2 inf/tank) and still have 18-19 IPC to move units through Norway. (3Inf, art, arm).

Squirecam

[squirecam]

@Sankt:

I’ve found I quite often attack a juicy Bury(1-6 inf with small/no chance to counter) rather than take out the pearl fleet. I’m still waiting for someone to exploit that with a KJF. Nix had a go recently but he went for the naval superiority as well. On the other hand CC sent the ships to the atlantic and that became a bigger problem for me than having them sail around in the pacific.

Is this a Bury with Inf only, or with a fighter for protection?

Assume 6 Inf + Fighter is there. You attack it?

Squirecam

[Guest]

Octopus had been a fan of the 2 IC J1 build when he first joined here.  He later revised that to 1 IC on J1 after playing a few folks here.

He viewed 2 IC’s as “sub-optimal” after seeing potnetial counters.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@squirecam:

Is this a Bury with Inf only, or with a fighter for protection?

Assume 6 Inf + Fighter is there. You attack it?

Yes, inf only. With a fighter I’d probably skip it, unless the Kwang trn is still around. But a fig there means there was 1 fig less participating in combat elsewhere. I suppose no Egypt counter giving Germany early access to Africa and a possibility to take India or cut off russian supplies or simply take caucasus.

Don’t forget the bid, say 2 inf ukraine. Any units in cauc or w.russia can be taken out on G1, especially if units are on their way east.