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?
-
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?
-
Wow Bashir, just let your hatred spew forth. Sheesh.
Transports are better huh? Would you prefer to pay 13 IPC to get that tank from Japan to Manchuria or 5 IPC? Yea, thought so. Go sit in your corner and figure it out.
-
I’m new to the forum, but after reading this thread I wonder why no one brought up blending in a couple subs
into the Japanese fleet. I don’t think you can support an IC AND transports with Japan in classic, nor should you want to, at least early on.
But if you lose your fleet you are done, plain and simple. The subs cost the same as transports and can be used as a buffer, or part of a fleet. They can attack and have better defensive capabilities then a transport. Since they only hit ships, the americans better beware of what they bring to the various battles. In short, buy subs!!! -
I’m new to the forum, but after reading this thread I wonder why no one brought up blending in a couple subs
into the Japanese fleet.Because that would be stupid!
-
BTW
Ethics and Morals
Jennifer: 1
Administrators: 0What BS is that?
Jen is “venting” because she deliberately, after being warned, violated the PD site rules and got a 1 week ban. Since she cannot post there, she is expanding the discussion to anywhere she posts via her sig file.
Now, this is OFF TOPIC for this thread AND topic area, and no further discussion on this topic is to be made here (but I felt the question deserved an answer since asked here).
-
Wow Bashir, just let your hatred spew forth. Sheesh.
Transports are better huh? Would you prefer to pay 13 IPC to get that tank from Japan to Manchuria or 5 IPC? Yea, thought so. Go sit in your corner and figure it out.
Well, I would rather pay 13 than 20… :roll:
-
don’t forget either you have to purchase an AA or load a tranny for a turn brining an AA there. That’s another 5 ipc.
This is all assuming that the Allied didn’t go for the Kwang Bang. If Allied did go Kwang Bang with no Bid in Asia, then Japan is going to be hurting.
-
With a kwangbang it’s a moot issue, and they always go kwangbang! Common now. It’s such an over rated high risk maneuver too, but it’s done nearly 100% of the time in classic. Rather annoying actually. Cause the Allies cannot maintain the pressure without significant investments, and odds are, if it was done, Germany’s got 21-24 IPC worth of units to send after a stripped Russia now.
Suggested Topics
