Japan and Industrial Complex

Don’t know who you’ve been playing with, but that’s a very common strategy in my experience.

Please define “nobody” ;-).

I am defeinately not part of that group…
I remember having built 5 IC’s in Mainland Asia (Hong, Shang, FIC, Mal, Shantung). I even built 4 ABs and 2 NBs on them (Malaya and Hong already have a NB). I call this “The East Coast Industries”…

But it really depends on what you want to/must do with Japan if and how many IC’s you can build.
If the USA is focusing you down I imagine it’s the worst thing to do to build lots of industry there (1 or 2 IC’s are maybe ok, I don’t know, I have no experience with a KJF -yet).

Most players in the league build complexes early and often, although I do not.

Transports give you more options, and used correctly, can get more units onto the mainland where you want them, faster.

It’s just not as simple as comparing cost and concluding that IC’s are superior.

I think both work about equally well.

Early mICs are slightly less cost effective than transports and could be vulnerable to SBR or capture depending on the game. But you can also build ships and planes without the travel delay from SZ6. The main benefit is freeing up the fleet, so it doesn’t need to remain in range of SZ6 for troops to continue moving.

Transports require an escort to kept them afloat, but project power far better than mIC. Also the Allies will never capture them or SBR them. Having a large number of transports can give Japan lots of possibilities and ultimately makes it easier to crack the hard targets of the Pacific.

Well said

Thanks  :-)

My opening buy is 1 Ic in shantung and 2 Transports with Japan. Most people do this, but it all depends on what your going for  some buy 3 transport as there round 1 buy and don’t buy Ic until later. Personal I’d like to know I can put boots on the ground Early and fast.

One of my standard moves when playing Japan is to put an IC in Shanghai. I will still get transports too. That way I can get ground troops into China and use my transports to take the DEI and threaten Sydney and/or Calcutta.
I don’t think just getting an IC OR transports is the answer. You really need both.

Knp: I too always do Shanghai and two Transports on J1.
I agree a Transport in SZ6, if safe, is always a good placement for the range of possibilities in offers North or South.
I admit I am one of those players who seems to end up throwing away Transports grabbing one island, then having to buy another and waiting two turns to use it effectively.
I like to still all over the Chinese and am not happy unless I have a second IC down by J3.
I do not go IC mad(3 probably my max), but then I am not an expert Japanese player and rarely get near 70 IPCs.

The comment made above about freeing up the fleet is a large part of my reasoning behind starting with an IC 2 tran buy, and typically another IC placed in FIC on j3 or J4, depending on declare round.

I will spend a tranny or two sweeping up the islands, but most of the time, I like to protect the trannies i am grabbing up the islands with.

My thought is this, a first turn IC on shangtung that cranks mechs all game, and a 3rd turn IC doing the same, is a 100 percent guarantee that India will fall quickly and efficiently, with no need for my boats to get involved, unless UK abandons its Egypt defense to reinforce India.  Usually it is between UK5 and UK7 that UK pac is backing out of india and handing it over to me.

At the same time, my boats generally have no problem stacking up an island sea zone (mostly Java, for two-way options) preventing the allied fleets from suiciding trannies at my islands and preventing my bonus, or forcing me the spend my own to get it.

One of my nastier moves when things are going well in the pac is to stack up a NG SZ and put down a seabase, this creates all kinds of headaches, but it isnt always viable if USA is coming after u strong in the pac.

Net result is that I keep all the money islands, often also deny the Anzac NG objective, AND force India capitulation all at the same time.  I dont believe this is possible without the commitment to ground and pound units from the 2 early ICs.

I also find that IC plus transports off the mainland are the best way to handle russia pushing its ground in on me.

@knp7765:

I don’t think just getting an IC OR transports is the answer. You really need both.

This is what I think as well.

@cyanight:

One of my nastier moves when things are going well in the pac is to stack up a NG SZ and put down a seabase, this creates all kinds of headaches, but it isnt always viable if USA is coming after u strong in the pac.

Curious… but why the Naval base?

I can tell you why -I- would do it (in fact, I sometimes do it at Java). With the NB you have a reaction force that can reach Sydney, New Zealand, either of Hawai/Calcutta -basically everywhere on the Pacific except the sea of Japan itself- in 1 sortie.

You can observe the allies’ mistakes and take advantage of it in 1 turn. If they do not make any mistakes, at least you have a strong strategic position.

Hey all,
I have heard a few times of a UK strategy of basically giving up India to Japan. Like UK Pacific builds up men and equipment there seemingly for a strong defense then when Japan comes on with a big force ready to attack next round, the UK player moves all the UK units out of India, basically handing over a VC to Japan.
I understand not wanting to lose all those troops and equipment, especially if Japan has a big enough force that UK is sure to lose the battle, but don’t you want to make Japan fight and lose units in taking Calcutta?
Am I missing something here?

If UK stack is likely to only take out Japan slow moving ground units and a plane or two, then no, I think it’s a bad idea to stay there and get wiped out.  Most of Japan’s slow moving units at that point can’t do much of anything for awhile, although they maybe could chase the UK-India stack wherever it goes.

But an evacuating UK-India can go trample out the Axis in the Middle east and/or go reinforce/help in Russia or the back side of China.

Again, if UK-India stack (including some aircraft) is just going to sit there and kill a dozen or so slow-moving Japan units and a plane or two to AA fire, that’s a terrible trade for the Allies.  And the remaining Japanese units can flood west anyway.

I would think India should only take a stand if they have a good chance of taking out several good (mech/tanks/airplanes) Japanese units, in which case they may have a chance of doing a lot of damage or even outright holding.

You don’t want the Axis player to know you plan to evacuate India no matter what, because then they don’t have to send as much at India and can focus on getting 1 more VC and the win.  Once India falls, of course, the Allies have the problem of being 1 VC from a loss and having to defend both Hawaii and NSW every turn until a VC can be taken back
So as far as having a “strategy” to evacuate India, like you intend to move the India stack to the Middle East or Russia at the first good chance, well you’d better have the USA focusing on Japan from the beginning of the game (which a lot of players actually do, these days)

I agree with Gamerman!
UK makes a stand when it can take down a lot of Japanese air with it. Makes defending the other two VC so much easier.

If you cannot hit a lot of Japanese air, retreat and you may even be able to take India back immediately if Japan walks in with all his might. Depends on how much RAF the UK has in the middle east and how much Japan has invested in taking India. Remember Japanese air cannot land there if he takes it.

It is not too hard for the UK to return to India with those Indians + European reinforcements having 120+ attack factors from 50-70 units. Japan will have to invest so heavily in holding India and/or keeping its airforce around for defense, that hunting for the other VCs (Hawai, Sydney) cannot receive much investments/the much needed air units.
Because if they do, they may well end up with Hawai taken (or not) while the UK kicks them out of Calcutta again!

Good point about possibly attacking/retaking India with the UK stack.  Forgot about that option when I did my reply

Interesting point guys. I had never thought of it that way. Most of the time when Japan comes for Calcutta, they come very “air heavy” and those planes can’t help them defend. Simply move the British stack out, let Japan move in with what land units they have there, then pounce on them and take Calcutta back. After that, in all likelihood, Japan will have little to no ground troops around and you will have made their big air force almost useless (at least for retaking Calcutta, that is).
I can also see where a large British stack could be useful in claiming/reinforcing the Middle East and helping out the Russians or defending Cairo. Although, it seems like they might be followed by the army of angry Japanese that took Calcutta, plus anything that Japan builds with it’s new factory in Calcutta.

You mentioned extra troops from UK Europe. Perhaps we are not playing UK right, but usually UK Europe has it’s hands full keeping Italy in check and trying to sting Germany somewhere. In fact, there is rarely any collaboration between UK Europe and UK Pacific in our games. Sometimes, if it doesn’t look like Japan is threatening Calcutta, UK Pacific will make some planes and fly them over to help in the Med, but otherwise the two sides are pretty much separate. They each seem to have too much going on in their own theater to try helping the other side. I mean, if UK Europe sends stuff over to help out India, won’t that make them weak against Italy? If Italy is played right, all they need is that one shot where UK is a little weaker than normal and they end up spreading like a plague throughout Africa.