Where to build Japanese factory: Poll Question

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.

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?

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)

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:

@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:

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.

Young Grasshopper,
I just  checked out your Production Unit rules and now I get what you are talking about with FIC.
So, with Egypt, since it has a VC (Cairo) then the UK could build a minor factory there. Also, if Italy were to capture Egypt, the UK minor factory would be removed, but Italy could then build their own minor factory there. Right? Same thing with Germany vs. Russia and the Leningrad factory.
However, if Germany captures the Ukraine, the Russian factory is removed and even if Russia were to recapture the Ukraine, they could not build a factory there because Ukraine is only worth 2 IPCs and has no VC in it.
So if Japan captures the Philippines, they can place a minor factory there because of Manila, right?

You mentioned that these rules weren’t gaining much popularity, but I am seeing the appeal. For one thing, it does limit the number of factories that can be built which in some cases I think a little cutback on that was needed. Also it allows factories in a couple of rather odd places that wasn’t allowed before, namely Hawaii and Philippines. At first I thought it odd that the US was NOT allowed factories in Alaska and Mexico yet they could now build one in Hawaii. Then I thought that minor factories don’t necessarily represent actual manufacturing facilities. They can also be staging areas and supply depots. We just use a factory place to represent them because it’s simpler.
This also makes it harder for advances on both sides. You take a factory, you can’t use it like your enemy could. Either you get a lesser production or you have to build your own. A little more realistic if you ask me.

I really like these rules.  I am hoping we can play them on Thanksgiving weekend.  Black Friday for us is War Party, hehe.

How have your games been with Russia?  Can they hold out longer and possibly do something other than retreat?  I have another idea to possibly add to these rules to make it even more historic.  I can’t remember whose post I was reading, they were saying that Russia should have a complex in Urals but it wasn’t possible because of the numbering of this territory.  Do you think adding a minor to Urals at setup would imbalance Russia?

Wait could the Japanese build a factory in Phillipines? That would be pretty awesome for Japan…

In my games Italy isn’t strong enough to take Cairo, but it is Germany, after Moscow has fallen, that runs south to take it. Without the persia factory UK is going to have a lot less units there to defend, and UK won’t be able to make fighters that can in one turn get to Moscow.

I didn’t notice that if You take any minor factory that it is removed. That helps Russia out for sure. In that scenario I would probably wait till T4 to attack with Germany and do a buy something like: T1 6 arty 2 infantry, T2 10 arty 7 mech. That way you would already have the arty there for the final assault on Moscow.

Hey how has your guys games been going since you instituted the Halifax rules? Have you found merging the economies means you don’t need such a high allied bid anymore?

How would it hurt them more than help them? If you don’t play with the merged income rules then is the factory in India still a place where you can place up to 10 units?

Ah I see what you mean. If Germany bought a carrier and 2 transports first turn it could be pretty tough for India.

My concern with the India factory not being able to produce 10 units is that would make Japan much more likely to wait to attack the allies in the pacific since UK can only put down 5 infantry at most a turn. I think the bombing of India’s IC is not as big a problem as some have put on here that it is.