Japanes IC on J1?

Obviously this is a niche strategy, but there could be some use for it - it may allow the Allies to take one of the money islands as soon as US3. Here’s the plan

UK 1:
Unite Pac fleets in sz 30, build IC Aus

Attacking sz 30 is very risky for Japan, and it forces Japan to either to do Pearl light (with more risk of an unfavourable outcome) or skip Pearl altogether.

If Japan does not hit sz 30, build AC, fig, sub, trn on US1.

UK 2:
Move sz 30 fleet to sz 40, build AC sz 40

This threatens a unification of the UK/US fleets in sz 45 on US2/UK3. This combined fleet would consist of BB, 3 AC, 5 fig, 2 sub, 2 DD, 3 trn. This is too much for Japan to take on. If you add the 6th fig on US3/UK4 (and perhaps a UK sub that you build on UK3), you can take Bor or EI on these turns. Your combined Allied fleet would be so large that Japan has to bring something along the lines of 2 BB, 2 AC, 6 fig, bomber, DD, 5 trn, 4 sub to have a good shot at it, which requires a serious investment in the first few turns.

Without the UK IC, you would not have the extra UK carrier - a loaded carrier can make a big difference, and it may save you one turn in bringing down the Japanese in the Pacific. Of course, it comes at a substantial cost against Germany - that’s why it’s not played in most games, but it’s worth a try perhaps.

Japan can try to thwart your unification by moving its fleet to sz 45 itself on J2. I’d have to double check whether that is a worthwhile strategy.

Yea, I’ve been doing enhanced for a while, the destroyers are more expensive in revised.

So America buys 2 Carriers, Fighter then next round 3 destroyers, etc, etc, etc

Anyway, Canadian shield’s no real response.  Russia’s going to be all over Germany like flies on a hobo if they even attempt that maneuver while America’s massing ships, hell, even if Germany tries to go land and makes an attempt to roll over Moscow leaving Africa to the English.

The real question is, does Japan ignore America and lose all their islands and their entire fleet or does Japan build in response.  Since most players are going to build submarines in response (since they are cheaper than destroyers you can mass more of them faster) then America pulls out after just a few rounds (still more than enough time to rescue England if needed) leaving Japan with a bunch of useless submarines.

Meanwhile, America was building destroyers which, if you get the technology, and why shouldn’t you since you don’t need to build more destroyers at the moment, can bombard the Germans into the stone age with all but no expense to America. (Hell, given that arrangement, I’d recommend Bomber builds to just sink the Germans deeper in debt.  You only need 1 infantry a round to do your bombardments.)

Furthermore, now Japan’s building ground units like crazy, but Russia can divert 100% of it’s military power to defending against Japan and England can devote 100% of it’s air and ground power to attacking Japan.  Only England’s navy is tasked with ensuring that SZ 5 is cleared of enemy ships so that America is free to bombard each round.

My approach with Japan the two games I’ve played has been to build IC in India and FIC, build Arm there, and build TRNs also to keep a steady flow of Inf from Japan to Persia. That puts a lot of pressure on Cau to allow either Germany or Japan to take it. Once you have a big Axis presence in Cau, that Sink IC becomes less valuable to the Allies.

In other words, go around it - to the south. Germany can take Cau a lot sooner if Japan is in a position to immediately reinforce with a bunch of stuff.

My tourney game I also faced Russian defence (but no IC) and was also not able to take Sink / Yakut until J5 or so, but still there was enough money that I had 2 ICs and 7 TRNs running. I think Japan’s priorities should be building TRNs, taking Australia / New Zealand / India ASAP (J3) and picking up all the island Inf. Japan’s TRNs practically pay for themselves because of the island Inf supply, and because they increase the value of your forces by moving them to the front much faster.

Haven’t actually faced that American IC in Sink though.

In my two recent games however Russia has kept nothing in the East anyway. I guess you would still have to build more TRN anyway. Maybe the EI IC is a better build later on.

@General_D.Fox:

Why not just do a crossword instead?  No luck involved there, just yeer brain!!!

“brain”?!

Don’t be usin those four letter words up in heah!

@Perry:

I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.

UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.

Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.

I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.

As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.

And the danger is even grater if germany launches a rapid all out attack on Russia, while Japan musters up for the kill.

if you are playing with optionional rules it might work out( cos briton is probably going to put his free IC on INDIA and Amer get’s one infantry for free every turn in sinkiang or china), but if you are playing without them it would be unfair (cos U.K. and U.S. will lose their teritories and won’t be able to get them back. Trust me. I prefer playing with optional rules(all of them) because lots of things gests balanced