Since this has come up in a few threads, I’d like to move it to here. Here is my arguement about Japaneese Industry.
I dont like Industrial Complexes =-) btw I found a site from an old online friend of mine which will help you all see my point. you guys are really losing sight of Japan’s Objectives. Here is a quote from his sight.
"Now let’s describe Japan’s Traditional Basic Objectives:
Rapidly expand the Japanese economic base, through invading Asian-based territories.
Address mainland pressures brought about by a British-built Indian Factory, if it exists.
Push the Russians back, taking more and more of their territory, as soon as possible, minimizing their economic ability to deal with the
German front. Take away Russian income as often as possible!
Destroy all Pacific based U.S. fleet within striking distance of Japan’s island base.
These objectives are fairly broad in scope, and have a timing factor built in because of the “default German situation” on the other side of the
continent…if you run out of time, Germany is defeated. If this happens, Japan is not likely to bear the burden of war alone, because of the
economic superiority it will face - “game over”, in other words."
So what can the Japanese accomplish here?
"Objective 1 can be accomplished rapidly, for sure, using the “first turn purchase and strategy” outlined in essay #1 - Purchasing the Right
Units for the Long Term War
Objective 2 can be accomplished, but only if Japan has enough survival time bought by the Germans in keeping themselves alive until then.
Objective 3 can be accomplished if the Russian player is forced to divert more resources to their German front lines, especially if they are
not supplemented by Allied support (specifically: U.S. infantry support).
Objective 4 can be accomplished rapidly, as the Japanese strength in the Pacific is unparallelled by the U.S. equivalent forces, with more
than enough strength to dominate the Pacific early.
So the real issue for the Japanese is summarized as thus, after considering Germany’s weak positional and tactical related
problems, and Japan’s own relative weaknesses and strengths:
Japan must divert Allied pressure off of Germany somehow, by utilizing the strength of its resources to threaten Allied targets as appropriate."
It refers to other essays on this sight.
http://donsessays.freeservers.com/
And on the Mainland Factory he says…
"OU SHOULD NEVER BUILD A FACTORY ON THE MAINLAND ON THE FIRST TURN. THIS BUILD IS A MISTAKE, BECAUSE IT NEVER WORKS AGAINST
EXPERIENCED ALLIED PLAYERS WHO KNOW THEIR PURCHASING STRATEGIES AND DEAD ZONE (Essay #4) BASED TACTICS.
I routinely kill Axis players early when playing the Allies when the Japanese build a mainland factory on the first turn, because they aren’t able to put enough
pressure on the Russians quickly enough.
Huh? (You might ask) What the HELL is he talking about? That is the entire point of that first turn build!?!?"
"et’s back these statements with a few facts, shall we?
If a mainland factory is built on the first turn, the Japan player doesn’t get to use the factory until the second turn, with no way to funnel large amounts of land invasion
infantry attack and defensive capability support onto the mainland quickly enough to supplement a massive land assault. Why?
The answer should be obvious…you simply will not have enough transports to do the job. Extra Infantry will be stranded on the Japanese island and surrounding islands,
with no way to efficiently move off and onto the mainland.
In addition to this…with only two transports carrying a total of 4 infantry - these are not enough to machine a consistent advance on the mainland, due to losses taken on
mainland based infantry in subsequent battles by and after the 4th turn. This is because of a possible two sided front from the British and Americans on the South side of
the Asian continent (if the British and/or the Americans are bright enough to build a factory there), and the Russians, holding patiently on the Northern Asia front - should
be setting up counterattacks as necessary.
This ultimately stalls the potential gained economic base for the Japanese, because they will have to wait two full turns to gain more territory. This is called “early
containment”, and is far too late to deal with, because without Japan pressuring Russia appropriately, the Germans should be well on their way to being crushed by then.
Proof? Here it is:"
Now for my way of doing things
The Right Japanese Typical Purchases and Deployment Strategy: (and Typical Outcome of it…)
There are some derivations, according to opportunity (any free Allied territory, poorly defended, or poorly counterattacked Allied territory should immediately be taken).
The early main idea to set up is: to make any Russian attack on the Japanese to be a suicidal one, because of any possible counterattack. Doing this, the Japanese
player can effectively “push” the Russian forces back into retreat, without any substantial risk to your units, while dealing with any other Allied presence on their other
front(s). ANY opportunity to crush the entire Russian front on average die rolls should be done automatically - and don’t worry about the losses, unless they’re fighters (you
need every fighter available to make this attack structure work).
Turn 1 - A first turn Non-Combat move (using a basic Asian deployment example) is to transport 4 infantry pieces to mainland Manchuria (2 from the island, 2 from Japan,
of course), after all attacks are resolved (you must take out Eastern China, verbatim, to weaken any American factory possibilities that suddenly spring up in Sinkiang).
Available fighters land in Kwangtung or Manchuria, dependant upon taste and preference of counterattack responses or possibilities. (If the Russians attack Manchuria,
they will lose their front, totally - look at the counterattack potential if you don’t believe me - just examine the second turn possibilities).
Turn 2 - Building at least 6-8 infantry (maybe a tank), or a few less infantry and another transport…Combat or Non-Combat moves are to transport 6 infantry pieces (or one
tank in there somewhere) to Manchuria or Soviet Far East, transporting all available surrounding island infantry units next to Japan. All fighters assist any attacks, then
land in Manchuria (if the Soviets didn’t stupidly sack all of their frontlines by attacking Manchuria on their 2nd turn)
Turn 3 - Building at least 8 infantry (or a transport somewhere in there - by turn 3, you should be trying to have at least 4 transports ready and available)…after combat,
Non-Combat Moves are to transport 6-8 infantry into Manchuria, Fighters assist any attacks and land wherever appropriate.
Turn 4 - Building at least 8 infantry, maybe a factory, bomber, or some tanks…Non-Combat Moves are to transport 8 infantry into Manchuria, and the Fighters assist any
attacks and land wherever appropriate.
After turn 4, after all battles, etc, on previous turns - you will typically have about 15-17 infantry units on the mainland, with at least 8 more coming to be dropped off
anywhere on the coastline all the way down to Burma, in at least in groups of 3 or 4 defending and fighting somewhere on the mainland against the availing Russian and
British/American forces, using Japanese fighters to assist on any attacks, consistently moving your infantry into adjacent territories on a constant wave of attacks, EVERY
TURN, cashing out bigger and bigger at the end of EVERY turn, as opposed to:
And now why not to do the factory explained
Japanese Build a Factory on the First Turn: A Serious Tactical Error
Turn 1 - (After building a factory) Transport 4 infantry (maximum) to mainland Manchuria
Turn 2 - Build at least 3 tanks, 4 infantry (with a stalled offense, unless you want to waste your infantry on a front that will collapse if the Allied player has enough sense to
play more aggressively by building an American Factory in West China), Move 4 infantry into Manchuria.
Turn 3 - Build at least 3 tanks, 4 infantry sacking all your remaining infantry in battles with your tanks and fighters. Move 4 infantry into Manchuria (stalled behind the
advanced front line)
Turn 4 - Build at least 3 tanks, etc, your opponent(s) are now taking every opportunity to kill your tanks on counterattacks. Goodbye to all of your hard earned money, and
they will take back territory when the opportunity is available. Stalled again, and now you’re now thinking defensively, instead of offensively! Axis Death, this is!
In this situation, your forces are too thin on all boundaries, a total of maybe 8-9 pieces after all the attacks and counterattacks, to be truly effective as a consistent
threat to boundaries, and will always be stalled out, until the Japanese player realizes that they need more infantry on the mainland to supplement it. By then, an effective
Japanese attack is already too late. The American player and/or British player, if bright at all, will have at least one factory in place, sacking their produced units on the
Japanese front just to kill anything and everything, with steadily growing fighter support from Britain…you will need to redouble efforts to deal with it all, building the
infantry-transport fleet that you should have built in the first place, far too late to be effective now to secure consistent Axis pressure on Russia.
THIS IS INEFFICIENT AND WASTEFUL, BECAUSE YOUR JAPANESE FLEET IS SERVING LIMITED USEFUL PURPOSE AND YOUR EXPENSIVE ATTACKING
PIECES ARE BEING FORCED TO REGROUP, OR ALTERNATIVELY, DIE ON THE FRONT LINES. Death to the Axis when this occurs, always, against experienced
Allied players - they only need to stall the Japanese, not defeat them immediately, to eliminate Germany from play!!
This man is an old soldier who taught me how to play. Listen to this guy, read his site.
Sorry about the long post =-)
I play A&A since only a week and I pratically do the same thing than you hehe! :smile: I agree that you have to wait before to purchase an IC. Normally, you build an IC in Kwangtung or Manchuria to create Armors but you don’t need them at the beginning because your Fighters ARE your Armors. Just before I send my Fighters to help defend the German territories, that’s when I buy that IC.
additional note:
by investing money in transports to bring troops to the mainland of asia instead of a Industry, you threaten Alaska and Hawaii as well.
I agree with Yanny that building a Japanese factory on turn 1 is unwise.
As we all know, infantry are poor offensive units but must be brought into any serious attack to absorb hits. Infantry are a better defensive tool than tanks to absorb a counterattack because they are just as effective and cheaper. Any serious attempt on Moscow by Japan will require infantry to be successful.
But, the meat of any attack force is air and armor. Infantry are simply there to absorb hits on the attack and counterattack.
I don’t beleive you should rely so heavily on your air force for attack capability. Planes are expensive, they’re needed by you carrier, and are specifically susceptible to anti-aircraft fire. They also cannot defend newly aquired territories.
That’s why I think you need armor in Asia - and plenty of it. Not all armor - not even a majority of armor - but a strong armor presence in Asia is definately called for. They’re twice as fast as infantry and attack like a fighter for 40% of the cost of a fighter. Plus, they can help hold ground.
I’m not attacking your plan, I just don’t beleive I could make it work for me.
Oh yeah - I almost forgot.
That being said (above), a Japanese factory on the mainland is called for because it is the most efficient way to get tanks to the mainland.
And greensleeves, think of this - a factory on the mainland relieves the Japanese dependence on those transports. If you can produce three tanks on the mainland, that frees three transports to do something else that turn.
Let me make it clear, I’m not saying NEVER build a factory, but in the early game it is a vital mistake. I usually will have a factory on the mainland once the India and any American factories are gone.
And I dont use pure infantry pushing to do my offense, I use the extra money to buy fighters. I keep a ratio of 6 infantry to each tank though. I just find it more effiecient.
if the allies build a factory on turn 1 then it is quite easy for japan to take it. Therefore the allies should not build one. Thus, they have no way to stop the japanese. Tanks are needed for japan to take the mainland. Russia is not a problem. If russia sends men eastward then Germany can make use of their many tanks and march on moscow. If they do not then Japan is free to concentrate on eliminating india and the minimal us forces. Japan can take any asian territory it wants on the first turn and needs tanks there. An IC is necessary on turn 1
I bet you I could win playing as allies easily against your mainland industrial complex 19 outa 20 times. You play the computer game in addition to the board game? I’d love to get a game going.
On that note - Greensleeves we still on?
I tried to build a Japan IC in 1st turn and I didn’t really like the results. The problem is that you loose a lot of momentum.
dont know yanny, im awfully busy, but i think i can play in the afternoon my time (+1 GMT) next week.
I usually build an IC on turn 4 and sometimes in 3. I then build my armor at these factories and the infantry on Japan. But in the early part of the game i can rely on my fighters to capture china, india and some russian territories. I dont agree with you though on the armor part, i think only 20 or maybe 25% of your forces should be fighter or armor, not 40 or more. You will see that you run out of infantry to defend against counterattacks by moscow.
But anyway you need those fighters to capture asia, not to assist your fleet. Fighters can move 4, which means you can threaten and attack like 4 territories in Asia every turn.
I am going to have to disagree here. This all may be true if the Allies make a serious attempt to build and defend an IC in Asia, but doing so is a big mistake for the Allies. If the Allies (US UK) are focusing on an Asian IC then they are diverting forces away from the critical areas. The Allied strategy should be focused and directed towards Germany. If the US and UK dedicate resources to Asia, then they do so at the expense of investing resources that could serve a far greater bennefit by providing a defensive base for Russian territories against Germany that can ultimately be tactically implimented as a part of a three prongged attack against Germany once Russia has been secured. Germany simply can not invade a country that is defended by the US, UK, and Russia and they can not last long against a coordinated three prongged attack.
If the US or UK start messing around with a complex in Asia they weaken the Russian defense which will ultimately lead to more Allied casulties in the German/Russian conflict as well as weaken the Allied attack capabilities against Germany. Japan can do what ever it wants, but it will not be able to successfully invade the Russian capital once it is secured by three countries (Russian infantry backed by several US and UK fighters). Germany will fall far quicker against the coordinated attack…and once Germany falls it is good night for Japan.
The asian complexes are actually indirectly helping europe in 2 ways. First, if Japan is forced to deal with the Asian complexes it can’t attack russia easily. This allows Russia to not worry about the far eastern front. Second, it allows Britain and US slightly higher cash outs per turn. The majority of their money is stil spent on Europe.
On 2001-12-10 12:13, Yanny wrote:
The asian complexes are actually indirectly helping europe in 2 ways. First, if Japan is forced to deal with the Asian complexes it can’t attack russia easily. This allows Russia to not worry about the far eastern front. Second, it allows Britain and US slightly higher cash outs per turn. The majority of their money is stil spent on Europe.
Russia is not a threat to Europe at all early in the game -only to Asia. Russia can not afford to defend its Eastern territories against Japan -there is just too much land to defend. I can not see how the Allies could defend an Asian complex without investing a lot of resources to defend it against Japan -and if they do that there will be less support for Russia against Germany.
It is important to know what to focus on and what to conceed. I will always conceed to the perfieral battles in order to win the critical ones convincingley. The biggest mistake I see people make is trying to do too much and spreading themselves too thin. It seems to me that this strategy loosly falls into that category.
But that is just my opinion. I am always open to other’s ideas/opinions.
You also need to prevent Japan from becoming too powerful. They start fairly weak but can become quite powerful (IPC-wise) very quickly if you simply ignore them. Hence the complexity of the game. As the allies you must stop the Germans before they can do damage to the Russians but you need to keep the Japanese bottled up untill you’ve finished with Germany. This is why as the US I like to keep my options open in the Pacific with a fleet larger than that of the Japanese.
You said it yourself, the point of an asian factory is to not spend much money on it. I usually commit 2 american tanks and 3 british tanks. This can hold off japan for 5 or 6 turns. During this time, the allies are landing troops into Karalia and Russia ususually commits 1 or 2 inf each turn toward the far easy.
russia, can easily hold out against germany. In the majority of my games, if the allies oust germany from Africa early (can be done in just a few turns) russia will usually make more money than germany if Japan is boggled down in Asia. a few turns later, the germans are on the defensive, and the japaneese are just begining their attacks on russia, which has the money to fight the japaneese.
Well it is not a bad strategy, but I am not a fan of it. The 5 tanks and 15 ipcs (5 men; 1 fighter; etc) used on the complex in Asia is no trivial loss of arms in Europe. It is conceivable that they could be the difference between victory and defeat or the difference between a mere narrow victory and a convincing victory in a key battle in Europe. Germany will greatly appreciate these force having been applied else where.
And 5 tanks is really not much of a force for Japan to contend with. Even when unchallenged, it takes Japan many rounds to assemble a force capable of challenging the Russian capital. And by that time there should be a formitable force of Russian infantry backed by American and British fighters ready to meet the challenge, and Germany will already be on it’s last legs defending its few remaining strongholds against a three nation invasion while in financial ruin.
By directing resources at Japan you may manage to stall Japan somewhat, but you can not do so without taking pressure off of Germany. My experience is that Germany will fall quicky against a coordinated all out mulitnational assault, and that even an uncontested Japan takes time to become a threat. Taking even a little pressure off of Germany may slow down the spread of the Japanese in Asia, but the URGENCY of Japan’s arival has also been diminished due to the loss of pressure on Germany. You slow down Japan (a little), but buy time for Germany. This to me is a mistake.
Again, you said it yourself, Germany can easily be taken down by a combined allied assault. But, if you do that it becomes a race for if Japan takes Russia before the allies take Germany.
The key to my plans is moderation. Spend 75% on germany, 25% on japan. Japan, bottlenecked at the start, will take a few turns longer to get into shape and make a serious threat upon russia. By now, Germany and Russia are in stalemate, America and Britain now are in full swing, and the Japaneese are just begining to gain momentum. Problem is, once they gain momentum, the russians, if they havent been putting enough infantry toward Japan, may also be overwhelmed.
On 2001-12-11 11:46, Yanny wrote:
Again, you said it yourself, Germany can easily be taken down by a combined allied assault. But, if you do that it becomes a race for if Japan takes Russia before the allies take Germany.The key to my plans is moderation. Spend 75% on germany, 25% on japan. Japan, bottlenecked at the start, will take a few turns longer to get into shape and make a serious threat upon russia. By now, Germany and Russia are in stalemate, America and Britain now are in full swing, and the Japaneese are just begining to gain momentum. Problem is, once they gain momentum, the russians, if they havent been putting enough infantry toward Japan, may also be overwhelmed.
Japan will not take Russia. Far from it. Germany will fall far quicker and once Germany falls it is all over for Japan.
Russia can easily fortify its capital’s defense by buying infantry and the US and UK will provide air support. Japan needs to build but it can only do so with limited quickness even if uncontested. The more pressure the Allies put on Germany the less time Japan has to build its force because once Germany falls it is all over for Japan anyway. This is the key. There is no need to stall Japan because the more pressure the Allies put on Germany the easier Germany will yield land and the quicker it will fall -hence the less time Japan has to build.
And with three countries providing support, Russia can easily defend itself against Japan. A few UK/US planes (that can also be flown to combat when on the offensive) and all Russia has to do is throw some infantry in the capital when Japan reaches its borders.
One thing that I learned early on in playing the game is that it is not wise to try and do too much. It is better to concentrate on one thing than to try and do several things half-heartedly. The reason for this is simple. The quicker I can kill my opponent the fewer casulties I will suffer in doing so. If I destroy my opponent in one round, I will only suffer as many casulties as he can inflict in a single round. If it takes me three rounds to kill that same force, I will suffer three rounds worth of casulties in the transaction. The point is, the 5 tanks and 15 IPCs plus what ever else you commit to building/defending an IC in Asia may not seem to you like a lot of fire power to be taking away from the efforts in Europe, but they can be VERY significant. Every enemy those pieces kill is one less enemy that can potentially inflict casulties on me, and the pieces they save can then go on an destroy more enemy pieces hence preventing further potential casulties to my forces…etc.
The bottom line is a quicker, easier falling of Germany. Japan may expand slightly quicker if left alone, but this quick expansion is outweighed by the hastening of the German demise and a stronger Allied force as the result of fewer casulties sustained due to more convincing Allied victories in combat.
[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-11 13:07 ]
A good japaneese player can reach moscow in 6 turns, with average luck a german player can hold out for at least 10 turns against an all out assault.
On 2001-12-11 13:19, Yanny wrote:
A good japaneese player can reach moscow in 6 turns, with average luck a german player can hold out for at least 10 turns against an all out assault.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. 6 rounds seems about right for Japan to build a strong force on Moscow’s doorstep, but not necessarily strong enough to take it. With 4-6 Allied fighters (easily afforded by UK/US within 6 rounds) in the Russian capital Russia only has to contribute a solid base of infantry to defend itself against Japan.
I think you are off on the German estiamte. If the Allies avoid spreading themselves thin in the Germany conflict and systematically move onto German soil one step at a time as a single significant force, Germany will never hold out for 10 rounds against the pressure of a multi-national force. They could only hold out that long if the US or UK manage to squander their pieces by engaging in minor and insignificant periferral battles.
Anyway, as I said, I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
