Japanes IC on J1?

My standard Jap purchase (unless on a heave KJF) is IC on Fic, 2 trn

@ncscswitch:

IF you are not faced with a KJF by the United States, there is a small advantage in number of units sent toward Moscow in the first 3 turns of the game by purchasing an IC on J1.

It is not a huge advantage, but it is significant.  The J1 IC is, like many other early moves, a gamble.  And the success or failure of it is contingent upon the reaction (if any) to the build.

Whether you purchase an industrial complex on a 3 IPC territory on J1, or produce 2 transports, that investment still doesn’t see Japanese ground units into Asia until J2.

On J2, units at an industrial complex are forced to appear where the industrial complex is.  Units loaded onto transports have a much greater range.

And at any rate, on J2, the 15 IPC industrial complex will get you THREE units into Asia.  The 16 IPC transport buy will get you FOUR units into Asia.

What NCSSwitch is probably thinking is that an industrial complex in French Indochina lets you set up a quicker “feed” into India.  That is - two transports moving from Japan to French Indochina can drop 4 units, but on the next turn, those two transports must return to Japan (so will have to drop units at Burytia or Kwangtung next turn).  If the transports alternate pickups, that’s two units a turn reinforced into French Indochina (and two units a turn into the Burytia or Kwangtung front).  On the other hand, three units produced at French Indochina at an industrial complex is three units.

@newpaintbrush:

@ncscswitch:

IF you are not faced with a KJF by the United States, there is a small advantage in number of units sent toward Moscow in the first 3 turns of the game by purchasing an IC on J1.

It is not a huge advantage, but it is significant.  The J1 IC is, like many other early moves, a gamble.  And the success or failure of it is contingent upon the reaction (if any) to the build.

Whether you purchase an industrial complex on a 3 IPC territory on J1, or produce 2 transports, that investment still doesn’t see Japanese ground units into Asia until J2.

….

On the other hand, three units produced at French Indochina at an industrial complex is three units.

Those COULD be three TANKS, which two transports can not deliver.

I agree, the difference can be a slight advantage.

@axis_roll:

Those COULD be three TANKS, which two transports can not deliver.

Sir, are you proposing a land war in Asia?!  Without infantry?!

I would say - when given a choice between 3 tanks, and 2 infantry, an artillery, and either another infantry or a tank, I would choose the infantry, unless it’s a Tank Dash game.  And since I am not a general proponent of Tank Dash (I think it’s viable in certain conditions but certainly not always), I say TWO TRANSPORTS is teh secks.

“You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia,’ but only slightly less well known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’”

One factor many people overlook is that a Japanese transport, unlike an IC, can be sunk.  And if the Allies are on the ball, they will place bombers in range to do just this.  An all-transport Japanese strategy then absorbs costly warships to defend the transports.

I personally prefer an Indochina tank factory and a strong push into the decisive India/Persia/Caucasus area where the game is usually won or lost.  From here you can still cover Manchuria and Sinkiang and give the Allies something to worry about other than your transports which can now round up stray infantry unharassed.  You might have to surrender a few IPCs in Siberia but getting the most materiel into the decisive area in a constant stream from r2 is the key to victory.

One factor many people overlook is that an IC needs to be protected from SBR. After the first IC(which can be covered by the AA in Japan), all subsequent IC’s cost 20 IPC’s for the IC and the AA to protect it. Those very same Allied bombers that can be positioned to attack TP’s will also be positioned to bomb IC’s.

In a KGF, when was the last time Japan had to load it’s second CV, anyway? Or even used the DD after attacking sz52 on J1? Those units are available and unneccesary for just about anything except covering transport movement. Plus, if you are using 4 TP’s in sz60 to unload units they are usually deterrent enough and you can always put the sub with them, too. Who in their right mind would risk attacking 4 TP, 1 SS with a bomber when they are only likely to kill the sub?

I agree, the trns aren’t that hard to protect.  Japan in most games will have 2 BB, 2 AC when it comes to J2, and as U-505 points out there is a pretty good chance you’ll still have your DD.

@newpaintbrush:

What NCSSwitch is probably thinking is that an industrial complex in French Indochina lets you set up a quicker “feed” into India.

Actually no.  What I AM thinking about is an 8 unit build limit on Tokyo.

Having all the income on the world means jack if you can;t build more than 8 units a turn.  That is only enough to keep EVEN with Russia, and you have to OUTBUILD Russia as Japan if you want to win.

@U-505:

One factor many people overlook is that an IC needs to be protected from SBR. After the first IC(which can be covered by the AA in Japan), all subsequent IC’s cost 20 IPC’s for the IC and the AA to protect it.

Actually no, they do not.  When Japan has enough income that they need a 3rd IC, then there is no place in range of at least one of the mainland IC’s for the allies to base a BOM.

@ncscswitch:

@U-505:

One factor many people overlook is that an IC needs to be protected from SBR. After the first IC(which can be covered by the AA in Japan), all subsequent IC’s cost 20 IPC’s for the IC and the AA to protect it.

Actually no, they do not.  When Japan has enough income that they need a 3rd IC, then there is no place in range of at least one of the mainland IC’s for the allies to base a BOM.

If i’m going to bomb a city the aa at 1@6 doesn’t really scare me. the benefits seem to be better than the small risk. its really a waste of 5 ipc.

To be honest, risking a BOM at 1 in 6 to do a max damage of $3 is something that i WANT the Allied player to do when I am Japan :-)

@ncscswitch:

To be honest, risking a BOM at 1 in 6 to do a max damage of $3 is something that i WANT the Allied player to do when I am Japan :-)

it defiantly won’t be worth it if you do it over and over but if you have an extra bomber for the turn you might as while use it because it MOST likely won’t hit the 1st time you do it.

With the reduced damage potential, SBR’s on a $3 IPC territory get skewed.

With an AA present, the average is that the Allies will take $2.5 IPC of damage for an SBR against a $3 IPC territory.
(1 in 6 times $15 value of a BOM)
The defender actually takes LESS than that on average since 1 in 6 is ZERO damage, and if that fails then 2 in 6 is $1 or $2 in damage, with a max of $3

And in that circumstance, if I get your BOM, you just lost 5 times the maximum potential of the SBR.

Over the long haul, I WANT the Allies to SBR FIC or India if I have an AA there… they waste their bomber on an attack that is slightly less than break even long term instead of supporting counter-attacks against my Japan forces :-D

Remember, SBR’s are BARELY worth while long term when the territory IPC value is $6 or greater.  Reduce that top end potential damage, and they are a losing proposition.

@Flashman:

One factor many people overlook is that a Japanese transport, unlike an IC, can be sunk.  And if the Allies are on the ball, they will place bombers in range to do just this.  An all-transport Japanese strategy then absorbs costly warships to defend the transports.

I personally prefer an Indochina tank factory and a strong push into the decisive India/Persia/Caucasus area where the game is usually won or lost.  From here you can still cover Manchuria and Sinkiang and give the Allies something to worry about other than your transports which can now round up stray infantry unharassed.  You might have to surrender a few IPCs in Siberia but getting the most materiel into the decisive area in a constant stream from r2 is the key to victory.

One of the main reasons why transports are good is that they can be used to absorb hits in a naval battle.  ICs cannot absorb hits.

If the Allies are buying bombers for the Pacific, that’s good for Japan.  Japan already has two battleships and two carriers.  Use those for transport escorts, and the transports dying to lone bomber attacks is not a problem.

If Japan is dumb and leaves its transports unescorted, the Japan player deserves to get spanked.

1.  It’s hardly automatic that Japan will have AA guns on its 3 IPC territories.

2.  Ncsswitch, weren’t you talking about a J1 IC build?  If you do IC/transport (with no bid), that’s five units into Asia on J2. If you do three transports, that’s six units into Asia on J2.  I don’t debate that Japan does need to have an IC if the Allies go KGF, but I think that Japan ought to only build an IC AFTER the Allies direction and defenses are determined.

@newpaintbrush:

1.  It’s hardly automatic that Japan will have AA guns on its 3 IPC territories.

2.  Ncsswitch, weren’t you talking about a J1 IC build?  If you do IC/transport (with no bid), that’s five units into Asia on J2. If you do three transports, that’s six units into Asia on J2.  I don’t debate that Japan does need to have an IC if the Allies go KGF, but I think that Japan ought to only build an IC AFTER the Allies direction and defenses are determined.

and also india falls pretty wuick so that should be your first IC. thats because it will be quicker to build in india than to ship units in japan. when in manchuria it would be the same pace.

With a 1 IPC bid, you do an IC and 2 TRN.  Then on J2 you buy another TRN to get you to 4 in SZ60.

J1 you unload 2 units (for the lone surviving TRN in SZ60.
J2 you unload 6 units (Wake, Oki, Phil, Japan) using 3 TRN, and build 3 with your new IC.
J3 you unload 8 units (Japan builds, any remaining in range islands) and build 3 with your IC.

Net over 3 turns is 19 additional land units to Asia.

@cyan:

and also india falls pretty wuick so that should be your first IC. thats because it will be quicker to build in india than to ship units in japan. when in manchuria it would be the same pace.

If the Allies do Ssinkiang IC / India IC / KJF, then India doesn’t fall easily.

But I will say it is USUALLY possible for Japan to capture India early, and that India IS an ideal place for a Japanese IC.

I like to build transports first because they can get free units off the islands and also help capture Hawaii, Aus / NZ, India and Madagascar.