I feel like a Russia-Japan non aggression pact would make it too easy for Germany to be taken down. The real battle of the game is whether or not Japan gets to Russia before everyone else gets to Germany.
Aggressive America - how to stop it?
-
Not IC’s, TRNs.
That way you add to the defense of your fleet AND move your troops from your unlimitted IC in Japan to Manchuria.
-
Yes, definitely transports. If you are building ICs and inf (as Jen said), for a 15IPC IC you can only get 3 inf to asia per turn. with 16IPC for 2 trns, you can get 4 inf to asia per turn. Plus bolster your fleet for the inevitable fleet on fleet combat as switch said.
-
The other very handy effect from trannies is that you can use them as fodder if the US fleet comes to Japanese waters… Get your airforce in place and have some transports as fodder and it is bye bye US fleet…
-
Yea, transports are nice, but they do you no good when you move to Hawaii to kill the American fleet. That’s two rounds of no units going into Asia.
A few ICs on the other hand, is a continuous stream of men and machines moving on Moscow.
-
Only 1 round… the actual round of combat movement.
Surviving TRNs can be use to ferry troops to Asia the following turn, as can new TRNs. And that is a heck of a lot of fodder for the US to chew through before they get to Japan’s capital ships and aircraft… fodder that does not exist if you are focused on IC’s in Asia.
There is a HUGE difference in Japan strats between Classic and Revised. In Revised you HAVE to have IC’s as Japan, in Classic, they are a waste of IPC’s since the Tokyo IC is unlimitted in production and massed TRNs allow you to land anywhere you would put an early IC in a single turn without being out of position for teh TRN to be used the followign turn.
Add in the naval fodder capability of the TRN’s AND the ability of those TRNs to then threaten North America if they survive the naval battle, and you have some very significantly increased flexibilty. Force multipliers…
-
Yea, transports are nice, but they do you no good when you move to Hawaii to kill the American fleet. That’s two rounds of no units going into Asia.
A few ICs on the other hand, is a continuous stream of men and machines moving on Moscow.
Try not sending transports to the pearl battle! DUH…Then you still have a nice continuous stream heading to moscow via trn.
-
My bad, I thought we were in the revised thread.
However, I am right in that if you bring Transports just to stop the American fleet, you do not have any left (probably) to shuttle troops the next round. Though, as Switch pointed out, you could buy more.
32 IPC for 4 Transports, or 15 IPC for 1 IC?
-
32 IPC for 4 Transports, or 15 IPC for 1 IC?
32 IPC to be able to move 4 to 8 units per turn
30 IPC to be able to build 6 per turn, but without any fodder for your fleet, no ability to shuttle forces wherever needed from Alaska to FIC in a single turn or Africa in 2 turns, no threat to the US, and no fodder and fleet defense if the US makes another go in the Pacific. -
As Scarface said, you don’t have to send the trn against Hawaii if you don’t want to. If you build IC, you wouldn’t have the trns in the attack anyway. With trns, you can choose whether or not you need the extra fodder. Or you can leave them in SJA continuously shuttling more inf than the mainland ICs can pump out. WIN-WIN.
-
@ncscswitch:
32 IPC for 4 Transports, or 15 IPC for 1 IC?
32 IPC to be able to move 4 to 8 units per turn
30 IPC to be able to build 6 per turn, but without any fodder for your fleet, no ability to shuttle forces wherever needed from Alaska to FIC in a single turn or Africa in 2 turns, no threat to the US, and no fodder and fleet defense if the US makes another go in the Pacific.15 IPC get’s you 3 units a round without tying up your fodder.
16 IPC gets you 4 units a round, but you cannot lose the transports as fodder and they can be attacked and destroyed by enemy action.
Much higher risk with the transports then the ICs.
Better is 4 Transports, 2 ICs then you can use the transports as fodder without much loss. Of course, that’s doubly true in revised where you have limited production anyway.
-
The errors in your calculations Jen…
Each piece of fodder is a FIG, BOM or capital ship let alive after the battle that otherwise would have been sunk/shot down.
SBR damage at new IC’s is NOT limited in Classic as it is in Revised… -
Also, yes transports can be destroyed, but so can ICs be captured.
-
Those were not errors in judgement. If I had a choice as America in a KJF between Japan throwing away transports and not having any Industrial Complexes or Japan throwing away fighters or having ICs and throwing away transports, I’ll gladly take the transport kills. You have to build transports, then chose to use them as transports not fodder next round!
ICs cannot be destroyed. And they are at no extra risk then any other IC in the game. Even 1 IC in Manchuria can be enough to turn the tide of battle in Classic against the Allies in a KJF maneuver.
-
In all honesty it comes down to simple game mechanics.
In Classic you don;t have limitted IC’s, so why build more? You don;t HAVE to like you do in Classic.
IC’s don;t defend, they don;t attack, they CAN be targetted for SBR to take away your cash.
TRN’s can defend, they can absorb damage by your offensive fleet, they can transport units to take them where you need them, they can send units to a LOT more places than a stationary IC and as such they force your opponent to defend more areas than they would against a fixed IC.
Why spend money on an IC that can ONLY produce units and suffer SBR damage when you can already produce all teh units you need and instead build units that are mobile, get pieces wherever you need them, and are valuable for both attack and defense?
-
No, I see your point in terms of Classic. However, even so, it’s convenient to have an IC on the mainland for Japan in Classic not only to free up transports for battle fodder but also because tanks take up a whole transport by themselves. Thus 1 IC can produce the transport capability of 3 transports if you build tanks.
Can they be targetted by Bombers? Sure. But you can also put an AA Gun there making them no more and no less targettable then any other IC on the map.
Can they attack/defend? No. But they also cannot be destroyed or stolen from you (as in moved away.)
-
No, I see your point in terms of Classic. However, even so, it’s convenient to have an IC on the mainland for Japan in Classic not only to free up transports for battle fodder but also because tanks take up a whole transport by themselves. Thus 1 IC can produce the transport capability of 3 transports if you build tanks.
ICs are a little more attractive a purchase if you plan on building lots of tanks, but
Devote everything else to IC’s and infantry to walk through Asia.
you are not planning on building any tanks so it is a false premise in this situation.
-
Don’t forget that trannies can pick up those infantry on the islands.
-
I may not be actively planning to buy tanks every round, but that does not mean I want to preclude the option.
-
Lol why argue with Jennifer… She can’t admit she is wrong anyway, so why go over it a thousand times? Everybody knows transports are better than IC’s. Maybe on turn 4-5 you can start building IC’s to pump arms on the mainland.
In KJF transports are even better than IC’s, because you see the US comming, so you can block them and stay at least ahead for 1 turn… So you can even buy 2 extra subs in the round before wich give you the perfect fodder to rape the US fleet. And Jen you forget the important lesson that if you can demolish more expensive units at low costs, while the enemy is not able to counter, this attack always must be executed.So If I can kill the US fleet at the cost of a couple of transports I take that any day! The reason why? Because you don’t have to pressure the Russians as hard, because Germany can hold its own against Russia and England!
-
BTW
Ethics and Morals
Jennifer: 1
Administrators: 0What BS is that?
Suggested Topics
