J1 Mainland IC

Since you posted in revised, I’ll assume you mean the revised edition, not the classic edition.

I have begun playing around with the purchase of 2 complexes on Japan 1 lately.  However, there are a few people that still bid 1 IPC to Japan letting them start with 31 IPC so they can purchase 2 transports and an industrial complex because, well, let’s face it, it’s just nice to have a complex on the mainland!

2 Complexes so far have been good to me.  However, I have yet to run up against a good opponent when I try to do something fancy and off the wall like that, so I cannot in good conscious recommend that as a first round build for anyone.  But I can say it’s fun!

Hi Guderian

Build the IC on East Indies. This is an island so it is safe, and you can build 4 units each turn, and with 2 trannies move them to Africa or Australia or Persia.

The problem that comes into play with the E. Indies IC is that you still need transports to get the units over.  That’s without even noting that you cannot get your transports from SZ 36 to E. Indies and land in Africa in one round like you can with a complex in India or FIC.

Those two reasons are enough for me to restrict the usage of a Japanese complex in E. Indies to two scenarios:

1)  I got shat upon by the dice gods and have no secure places on the mainland.

2)  America built me a complex in E. Indies that I, being as humble and grateful as I can be, went to unwrap and use.

@Cmdr:

I have begun playing around with the purchase of 2 complexes on Japan 1 lately.

Theoretically, against a good opponent who left their options open with Russia and UK, wouldn’t this incline the US toward a KJF strategy?

@Complexity:

@Cmdr:

I have begun playing around with the purchase of 2 complexes on Japan 1 lately.

Theoretically, against a good opponent who left their options open with Russia and UK, wouldn’t this incline the US toward a KJF strategy?

In general, yes, but specifically, no.  (Wow, I sure like to keep my ass covered don’t I?)

In general, if you have Japan blowing 30 IPC on units that can’t attack or defend, which cannot be used for Japanese reinforcements on the mainland until J3 (as opposed to transport able to support on J2), which cannot be used as naval fodder, then naturally the US will be facing less resistance against Japan.

But specifically, the US may not be able to afford the time to KJF.

2 Asian ICs for Japan mean that after the Japanese fleet is forced to retreat from Japan (more likely) or blown up (less likely), Japan can still put 6 ground units a turn into Asia.  Those 2 Asian ICs will probably be at two of the three territories of Manchuria, French Indochina, and Kwangtung, all of which the Japanese navy can stay some distance from but still threaten any US movement into the area along with air based in Asia.  True, the Japanese air might not be in Asia after flying to Caucasus to reinforce German units there, but if that happens, the Allies have another major problem on their hand.

That isn’t the major concern, though.  The major concern is that IF Japan is putting two ICs into the mainland, those are probably tank ICs.  Tanks are incredibly mobile, allowing Japan to shift the point of its attack around.  That means that if the Allies bulk up at India, Japan can just push into China and Yakut; if the Allies bulk up at China, Japan can push on India.  And since the bulk of Allied defense is infantry, and since that infantry takes a long time for the Allies to move into place, and since the Japanese can redirect their attack so quickly, that means early retreats.

Which is STILL not the major concern.

Part of the major concern is that Japan thinks it was a good idea to build tank ICs in the first place.  You’re going to see this more in games in which the Axis assessment of the game is “WOW look, the Allies SCREWED themselves before Japan’s first turn started!”  You get this when, say, Russia is really aggressive first turn and attacks 3-4 territories (and loses a lot), or Russia gets really horribly unlucky first turn, or Russia buys 2 fighters first turn, and any combination of UK unluck and/or stupidity.  When that happens, both the Germans and the Japanese will be thinking the same thing - TANK DASH TO MOSCOW; smash Moscow before the Allies can recover from their bad luck / blunder.

The other part is how long it takes for the US to build in the Pacific.  US1 2 carriers 1 fighter for a US2 fleet of 1 transport 1 destroyer 2 loaded carriers 1 battleship (assume Pearl) moving up to Solomons.  US3 possibly sees invasion of any number of Japanese islands, but if US does that, Japan 4 may see a serious beatdown of the U.S. forces.  In any event, the US forces may not matter at that point, as Japan and Germany will be pressing on Russia like crazy, and with US going full throttle in the Pacific as it must in a KJF, UK shouldn’t be able to hold too well either at India or in through Archangel.  When Germany pulls tanks out of Africa on G3 and both Japan and Germany are industrial bombing Russia (they don’t expect the game to last past the sixth turn at most anyways), Russia gets pressured really fast.

About the time that US is setting up industrial complexes in 3-4 IPC islands or threatening Asia or Africa, US/UK could have set up an infantry drop route to Archangel.  (First Allied fleet stations northwest of London, transporting units from Eastern Canada to London that marched from Eastern U.S. last turn.  Second Allied fleet stations north of Archangel unloading London units).  This may involve abandoning Africa, but once you have 6 UK infantry and 6 US infantry reinforcing Archangel every turn, things start going bad for the Axis, especially when you consider that the US still has 22 IPC to play with a turn and the UK anywhere from 4-10 or more IPC (depending on Africa).

I think you see more KJF in tournaments in which there are additional victory cities and conditions, but more KGF in tournaments in which games are played to 9 VCs or more.

–

So in short - generally, yes.  Two Japan ICs on J1 means the US can think about an easier KJF.  But specifically, no; if you see two Japan ICs on J1, you have to consider why the Axis thought that such a good idea in the first place; can you AFFORD to take the time for the US to mess with Japan?

@GuderianHG:

Hi everyone,

my first post. I’ve recently returned to A & A twenty years after playing the old MB board game. Revised is a great development of that version and it’s got me hooked. I have a few ideas for strategies, all probably elementary to you.

I’m keen to know what you all think of building a mainland IC on J1 in FIC or KWA. Do you think it’s useful or would the Japanese be better served with 2 transports instead??

You do not want ICs on J1.  On J1 build 3 transports and a tank.  If you have a bid, perhaps 4 transports.

Rationale:

You do not know the U.S. plan.  Probably you lost the Kwangtung transport to UK1 attack.

U.S. Plan 1:  Kill Japan First:

So let’s say you built 3 transports 1 tank on J1, then US1 you see a gigantic Pac fleet build.  Fine.  You can switch to industrial complexes or whatever you like.  (I wouldn’t build any industrial complexes)  Those transports you built grab Japanese infantry from the islands (where the infantry are useless) and transport them to the mainland.  When the Allies get close, transports can be used as naval fodder (industrial complexes can’t).  Naval fodder is a BIG plus in a naval war; if the Japs built subs and fighters for additional hitting power, so much the better.

In the meantime, the Allies have a hard time responding to your threats on the Asian coast.  16 IPC of transports can drop up to four units at any of a great number of territories.  15 IPC of industrial complex just sits there pumping out units - dangerously predictable.

U.S. Plan 2 - Ignore Japan.

So you have four transports.  Why stop there?  Four transports is JUST enough to empty Japan each turn.  You still have to deal with emptying the surplus units that started on Japan, the islands, attacking Australia/New Zealand/Hawaii/Africa, and threatening Alaska/Western Canada.  That’s going to take more than four transports - five, six, or very possibly seven transports is what you’re going to see.

And industrial complexes are expensive and not as cost effective as transport at transporting sheer numbers to the Asian mainland.  Until you can produce more than eight units a turn at Japan, (considering the cost of transports, that could be a little while), you probably do not want an industrial complex.

When Japan does get an industrial complex, it should go for India.  India’s next to Persia.  Persia’s next to Kazakh and Caucasus, allowing Japan to threaten an otherwise difficult to reach interior territory (Kazakh) , and allowing Japan to reinforce Germany at Caucasus (or at least threaten to reinforce).  All in all, India is just a good place for an industrial complex; far better than the other 3-IPC territories in the area.

But if Japan builds an IC early, it can produce up to 11 units, so producing another IC at India is probably too passive.

The structure of my post was weak.  Oh well, up all night.  Ask if you have questions.

I’m not a big fan of the J1 IC, and I think two that early is overkill.
It is the same distance from Japan to Mos (with inf) if you use Bury compared to Man, Fic, or Kwa.  So you aren’t really speeding anything up, but you are limiting your flexibility and the amount of troops you are placing.  You also don’t know how your J1 attacks go, suppose you roll down at Pearl and the US does decide to go Pac.  You’re going to end up having to buy naval fodder anyways and now you’re not even coming close to filling the 14 spots you have for new units.

You need to be as efficient as you can with the Axis otherwise you’re just giving the Allies more time which is bad in the vast majority of games.

Like Bunnies, I’ll go with 3 trns and then either add in an arm (or rt) depending on what I think I might need in Asia on rd 2 and how much cash I’ll earn at the end of rd 1.
If India and Bury have been vacated I’ll probably go armor, but if I might have to fight through one area/or more I’ll go rt since I won’t need the blitzing ability until later.

The EI IC is interesting, but I’ve never pulled the trigger on it, been close a couple times though.  It needs to be bought early b/c you never want to back track your ICs, that is buy one for Fic/Ind, then buy one for EI.  You should buy the EI first.  But outside a strong Allied Push in Asia I don’t think Ind (or Fic) plus EI is better than just Ind plus Fic.  You only lose 1 unit in difference but you save on needing the 2 trns to get units to the mainland.

If you’re looking for extra push on Moscow, then you want to move forward so I look to place on Sin or Novo or better yet taking Cauc with Japan.

I suppose my perfect plan would probably look like, 1 IC for Fic in Rd 2 or 3, 1 IC for Sin on rd 3 or 4, then taking the Cauc IC sometime after that.

@DarthMaximus:

Like Bunnies, I’ll go with 3 trns and then either add in an arm (or rt) depending on what I think I might need in Asia on rd 2 and how much cash I’ll earn at the end of rd 1.

**Yeah, I never explained the J1 tank build.

Early artillery build means an artillery in at the kill, right?  But no, I don’t think that’s the case.  I think an artillery built on J1 is not going to reach near Moscow until well into the game.  At LEAST, I think, Japan has to wait for it’s J2 build to hit the shores.  (That is, on J1 you have maybe 3-6 infantry in China and 1 inf 1 tank elsewhere; that’s probably it for ground units.  On J2, you drop 8-10 more ground units into Asia, probably at different locations, which will reach the battlefront on J3-5 probably used for trading.  But Japan has a lot of air, so you might as well use infantry for this early trading.  Only by the J3 drop do you start seeing the Japanese units that will really start initiating the push deeper into Moscow territory, and that J3 drop means J2 production of artillery, not J1.)

But you will STILL produce artillery instead of a tank given that you need to solve the logistics problem of getting units to the fore, right?  Where is the ADVANTAGE in a J1 built tank?

It is my opinion that early in the game, the Allies have a very weak hold on the Asian coast, and a single tank can mean either Soviet Far East or India.

To explain -

Early on, the Allies have more forces near India than Japan probably will (if Japan sent a lot of infantry to whack China).  So the Allies can build up without a lot of advance notice, particularly with reinforcements from Russia.  It IS expensive to do this, and there ARE disadvantages, but stalling Japan at India means 1 more UK infantry every turn and 1 less Japanese infantry every turn, as well as possibly forcing Japan to build infantry at French Indochina for a while, other small advantages.

So you will probably want to move units to that area.

Thinking for a moment, you know that four transports a turn (plus probably 1-3 more transports) can empty Japan.  If you empty Japan quickly, you only need four transports to empty Japan.  Given that I mentioned Japan has great flexibility along the coast, where should those four transports go?

Well, my thought is that Japan DOES have flexibility, and Japan can THREATEN to USE that flexibility, so any Allied buildup along the coast can be hit by 4-5 transports worth of ground plus Japanese air.  But in general, you want to get into the routine of 2 transports at French Indochina and 2 transports east or west of Japan (probably east given Alaska/Hawaii/E. Canada, but there are certainly situations in which Manchuria is far better suited).  The 5th transport probably serves dual duty of emptying Okinawa, Wake, and the surplus infantry on Japan into Burytia, and pulls infantry off Phillipines next.

Why like this?

The two transports at French Indochina, on the next turn, sail east of Japan, pick up four infantry, and drop them in Burytia (or west of Japan and drop in Manchuria).  The two transports east or west of Japan pick up four infantry and drop them in French Indochina.

If you want to play the tank game, you can produce tanks to drop at Burytia/Manchuria.  Those tanks can either head south towards India (they’re fast, and add to the hitting power there, but you DIDN’T have to buy another expensive transport to get them to the battlefront quickly).

But anyways - the idea is that you keep following up at each site with 4 plus ground units.  (The north, even if bleeding tanks south, has the 5th Japanese transport feed).  That means if the Allies attack, Japan has more infantry just waiting to smack the Allies back.  Four ground plus 5-6 fighters plus bomber is far more than the Allies can easily handle.

What happens if you instead take the four transports and put them ALL at French Indochina on J2 (say)?  Then you have a pretty good force at French Indochina.  But unless you’re going to USE them all next turn to grab India, they’re just going to sit there - right?  I mean, okay, obviously!  And if they are NOT going to be used to grab India next turn, then those ground units are going to sit there NEXT turn too!  Because at this point the four transports have to return to Japan to offload units, and with all the movement used up, no more reinforcements can arrive at French Indochina that turn.  (You could use the 5th transport, but that means the islands and the Japan surplus won’t be moved off).

But let us say that perhaps you are worried that if you split transports that both the northern and southern Japan forces in Asia will be weak?  Perhaps you are worried that the Allies will attack?  YES, LET THEM, they are marching TOWARDS your rear infantry reserves, TOWARDS your fighters and bomber, TOWARDS your battleship bombardment, their infantry is NOT as effective attacking as defending.

But what the heck does all this have to do with a J1 tank, you say?

If you ARE setting up 5 Japanese transports this way (and note that the 6-7th should probably head to Caroline/New Guinea/Solomons/Borneo/East Indies possibly grabbing Hawaii/Australia/New Guinea/Madagascar/points in Africa, but that’s not until rather later) . . . but if you ARE setting up 5 Japanese transports, note that you are NOT dropping units into Soviet Far East!  And the Allies may still resist at India!

So what this MEANS is that a J1 produced tank can head south to India, joining transported infantry at French Indochina in an early “bleed out northern tanks to support the south” plan as described above.

Or, if the Japan tank dropped into Asia on J1 headed south, the J1 produced tank can blitz Soviet Far East while still being free to retreat to Burytia or join any Japanese forces from Japan’s first turn that hit Burytia on J2 in an attack on Yakut.  This means that the J2 infantry drop is freed to go into Yakut on J3 while the tank supports or stays back (depending on whether the Russians are putting up resistance, any forces at Yakut might be clobbered, so the Japanese can save their tank).  Of course, with a tank stationed permanently at Yakut, Evenki becomes blitzable (probably the Russians will have at least moderate holding forces at Novosibirsk, but defending Novosibirsk AND Evenki is too much to ask - so that’s another cheap Japanese IPC.  The Russians get it back, but WITH a Japan tank at Yakut, it’s a free IPC for Japan.  WITHOUT a Japan tank at Yakut, there’s a good chance Japan can do nothing without bleeding out its infantry reserves - an acceptable loss if the Allies bleed out too, perhaps, but with a tank, Japan has a CHOICE; without a tank, Japan does NOT.

The early game is delicate for the Japanese, with a single tank very possibly meaning the swing.  The tank that is dropped into Asia on J1 can help ONE of the above goals (probably Soviet Far East)  But not both.  That’s why I prefer a J1 produced tank; that second tank can come in pretty handy.**

If India and Bury have been vacated I’ll probably go armor, but if I might have to fight through one area/or more I’ll go rt since I won’t need the blitzing ability until later.

The EI IC is interesting, but I’ve never pulled the trigger on it, been close a couple times though.  It needs to be bought early b/c you never want to back track your ICs, that is buy one for Fic/Ind, then buy one for EI.  You should buy the EI first.  But outside a strong Allied Push in Asia I don’t think Ind (or Fic) plus EI is better than just Ind plus Fic.  You only lose 1 unit in difference but you save on needing the 2 trns to get units to the mainland.

**Honestly, I’m just not that good with the Axis.  But I don’t think I would go for an East Indies IC.  As described above, you probably want 6 transports just to grab infantry off the islands.  (Note - an 8 IPC transport “makes back” 6 IPC pretty fast when it moves infantry that would otherwise NOT be used into Asia).  Make it eight for East Indies, and add in the cost of an industrial complex, and you have 79 IPC worth that’s going to transports and industrial complexes; that’s 79 IPC not helping in Asia.  Sure, you get a lot back transporting infantry off islands, and an East Indies IC helps in claiming Australia quickly, but you’re quickly in a situation in which you have six transports “locked down” for transport duty with only two transports for discretionary use.

Besides, note you’re spending 31 IPC (industrial complex plus two transports) to get 4 units to the mainland.  Compare with 15 IPC to get 3 units on the mainland, or 30 IPC to get 6 units (with two industrial complex).  Sure, an East Indies complex offers flexibility, but THAT MUCH?  I don’t think so.  I think it far more likely that you would build an East Indies complex only after emptying most of the islands and the Japan surplus, and have the Axis controlling Africa, so Japanese transports above four are left without any duty - throwing in for extenuating circumstances Allied forces contesting Africa and/or an Allied fleet approaching the high-IPC islands in the western Pacific.

Oh yeah, note - I do not see that DM DOES advocate an East Indies complex.  I am simply stating my reasons why I would probably not go for it in most situations.  (Barring extenuating circumstances which there could very well be.)**

If you’re looking for extra push on Moscow, then you want to move forward so I look to place on Sin or Novo or better yet taking Cauc with Japan.

Late, late game.  I think in a KGF game Japan hits the eight unit limit far before advancing that far.  Probably DM is talking about a SECOND Japanese IC.  ((edit) - I see reading on that I was right)

I suppose my perfect plan would probably look like, 1 IC for Fic in Rd 2 or 3, 1 IC for Sin on rd 3 or 4, then taking the Cauc IC sometime after that.

So you prefer a Cauc IC with JAPAN?  So you’re producing 8 units a turn at Japan, 3 units a turn at French Indochina, 2 units a turn at Sinkiang, 4 more at Caucasus?  18 units a turn!  I’m guessing you don’t build more than 5 transports and around the time you capture Caucasus, you switch the focus from emptying Japan to gathering infantry from the Pacific islands and messing with Africa/Australia/Hawaii/Canada, hence producing not 18 units a turn but perhaps 14 (four at Japan, not eight)

But still, you prefer to capture Caucasus with Japan?  Not Germany?  So I suppose that you are using Germany’s forces to fend off the Allies at Karelia/Archangel and to defend against Allied invasion of W. Europe/Germany, and I imagine that you’re talking about a game that has the Axis going until at least round 7, with the Axis trying to gain economic superiority in Africa as Japanese forces build up in Asia to the point that it is JAPAN that is doing the bulk of the work in threatening Moscow while the Germans try to stall out reinforcements?  Resulting in perhaps a round 8-10 Axis kill?

Like I said, my Axis game is relatively weak.  Perhaps you would elaborate a bit or at least let me know if my string of suppositions is right.

@GuderianHG:

Yes Darth, I think the EI IC is a non starter for the mainland myself, I just thought that maybe once Russia is on its knees the EI complex might accelerate taking Africa in an efficient manner. Yes your Asian/Russian units could simply turn south and head through PER and TRA, but they are possibly more likely needed to repel Britain and USA units from German borders; I understand Germany is now free of an Eastern front but it’s probably already down to the bone on income and could be incapable of re-inforcing sufficiently to take care of any invasions on it’s own. Just a thought.

Naw.  You see the position of East Indies.  To dump to Africa each turn, you need TWO transports per transport load (on the first Japanese turn, the transport at Africa returns to East Indies and does nothing while the second transport at East Indies drops units at South Africa.  On the next Japanese turn, they switch places &c).

So if you want to move East Indies’ 4 units a turn into Africa, you need 15 IPC (Industrial complex) plus 32 IPC (four dedicated transport).  And note this is assuming you have no other industrial complexes with Japan.

What if instead you just dropped units into India meaning you only need 31 IPC for a complex and two transports?  Well, then, you’re NOT feeding into Africa unless you have 1-2 other dedicated transports, so we’re missing the whole Africa question in the first place.  And that still feeds 4 units a turn into Asia with a 31 IPC investment that you can’t really use anywhere else (immovable industrial complex and dedicated transports).  Better is probably a 30 IPC for 2 industrial complexes to produce 6 units a turn.  (DM suggests 5 units a turn with build at Sinkiang - it’s still 1 IPC less for 1 more unit produced a turn).

If I were making a late game play for Africa, I wouldn’t do it with an East Indies complex barring a US Pacific presence or some other extenuating circumstance (of which there ARE MANY, I will note).  Probably I would just send 1 transport to bleeding India into Africa a bit (J3-5 PERHAPS, using one transport), then after I got a lock on Persia with Japan (assuming that CAN be done in the face of Allied resistance), shifting 1-2 plus Japanese transports to dropping units from Persia to anywhere from Union of South Africa to French Madagascar to both) if the Allies had light forces in Africa (and I mean light! Keeping pressure on Russia will probably be far more important at that point, so Japanese units at Persia will probably largely stay at Persia).

You might see a serious stall at Russia itself, in which case Japan would grab for Africa for economic victory (there isn’t “economic victory” in Axis and Allies, but with the Axis gaining more IPC a turn than the Allies and the Allies unable to reverse, the game grinds on to probable Axis victory).

As far as “being down to the bone” though - Germany has a lot of starting units, and with Japan taking the bulk of the work, Germany can fend the Allies off for quite a long time with an additional 10+ infantry a turn.  I am guessing that you do NOT see a climactic German-Russia battle that bleeds Germany dry in DM’s scenario (and indeed, Germany CAN avoid it).

There’s a whole Caspian Sub paper (Caspian Sub is a Yahoo group for Axis and Allies Revised) that mentions the German “shift” - that is, at some point in the game, Germany RUNS AWAY from Russia and holes up with masses of infantry and tanks in Germany/Western Europe/Eastern Europe.

I think - although I might remember wrong - that initially there’s a shift EAST with tanks with Western Europe lightly defended; if the Allies land at Western Europe, Germany crushes them with Eastern Europe tanks plus Berlin infantry.  Later, there’s a shift WEST with tanks with Eastern Europe lightly defended; if the Allies move in from Karelia to Eastern Europe, Germany crushes them with the now Western Europe tanks plus Berlin infantry.  There’s a bit more to it of course, but Germany lasts quite a long time when it doesn’t drain off the bulk of its strength in a climactic battle with Russia.

Probably Germany is not nearly so passive, though - I think the “picture” is that with Japan knocking on Moscow’s door, the Allies are forced to largely retreat to Moscow, allowing Germany to possibly hold at Karelia and Eastern Europe.  Germany’s retreat is VERY slow, allowing the Japs to be knocking on the door of Moscow in major force by the time the Allies can push deep into German territory.  Meanwhile, Japan gains IPCs from its vast holdings.  When Japan grabs Moscow, the Allies probably must grab Berlin right after, or Japan flies fighters to Berlin for GG (good game, or “game over”), and the Allies may well not be in position to do that.  (The alternative is to abandon Moscow and let the Japs grab it and do a fighting retreat with the Allies.  But Japan can pump out eight tanks a turn in Moscow and produce fighters to help defend Berlin - probably it ends with effective economic victory for Japan anyways, ideally?)

A lot of this IS suppositional, as my Axis play is relatively weak.  But I am guessing that is the picture, ideally.  Of course the Allies may press on Germany harder than described and grab Berlin before Moscow falls, or the Allies may switch to containment of Germany and reinforcement of Russia through Archangel, or any number of other things.

JAP RD1: 3 trans, 2 inf
     RD2: All Ground Troops
     RD3: IC Manchuria, Trans, as many tanks as possible 2 or 3 if things are going good)

I usually put an IC on Manchuria on RD3.
I make major push north with recently landed troops then new factory output.
Next goal is IC in India (by RD:5), so I start shuttling troops from the homeland, south.

BTW-Make sure you only buy ships when the fleet is going to be there to protect them!
(I have made the mistake, usually prompted by a few brew-ski’s)

The reason I like this method is that having the Northern IC frees my fleet to stay south if needed to capture TJ,Persia,Africa etc. I still get troops pushing their way to Moscow, while I attack the soft underbelly of Asia!

MY 2Cents

I didn’t get a chance to read through everything (those are some long posts bunny  :-)  ), but if possible I do like Cauc with Japan.

Yes, you can cut down on the units produced at Japan, but also I’ve found that when Germany takes it they still have to place 10 units in Berlin given the Allied threat plus potentially fight off the Allies in Europe.  Now If Japan gets it with it’s infantry hordes you’re guaranteed to be dropping rt/arm there plus the arm from Sin.  Moscow shouldn’t last too long since Germany can now focus on just stopping the UK/US ground troops from reinforcing Moscow.

It also gives Japan a Med presence which is extremely beneficial since now if you sail a BB, AC, DD, trns through the canal you can reinforce that fleet with added navy.

Finally it is good protection for a Capital trade, now Japan is placing 12 units compared to a possible 16 for the Allies.  But with the Ind or Sin IC as well, you are pretty close to parity depending on the losses taken in taking out Berlin-Mos.

Sometimes it is unavoidable and Germany has to take Cauc, or if Germany is extremely strong (still earning from Afr) then it might be better to just take with Ger.  But since Japan is usually the stronger of the two (earns 50+ for several turns in row), I like them to take it.

If possible, I’ll take Hi and Aus in rd 2 and Nz/Mad in rd 3, then those two trns either annoy Afr or sail to Bra.  In any case I’m looking at Japan earning near 50 (with trading of Kaz/Novo/Eve) by rd 5-6 maybe and that excludes any Afr landings that you can threaten.

As for trns, I’ll have 6 for sure, 4 for Japan’s units and usually two roaming.  Depending on the game I can add more if needed, but later if you have Cauc (or the three J IC combo, for example Fic/Ind/Man) you only really need 3 trns in sz 60 for offloading and can roam with the others.

@GuderianHG:

Because of the point where I think an EI IC might be useful in taking Africa, I can’t really see the transports being an issue - Russia is about to fall and you have landed enough hardware between BUR and NOV to finish them over the next 2-3 turns. Therefore you use the four Japan transports from EI in a 2 x 2 movement into Africa. Under these circumstances they are no more ‘dedicated’ than they were at Japan.

**You know, you’d think that with those supposedly long posts that I write that I’d have time to address things properly.  But actually, I often leave a lot unsaid (omg text wall!)

By ‘dedicated’, I mean dedicated to that one purpose.  They are pretty useless for anything else, and for various reasons - well, I’ll get to this in a minute.**

For me, at least, the next victim would probably be Britain and even before Moscow has fallen you’re making progress on cutting the next targets income.

OK, yeah.  Yeah.  Good times.  That’s pretty inarticulate . . . I should say “Even without specifics, you’ve given enough of a time and situational reference that the situation can be addressed, and I agree that the time and situational references you made are possible or even - probable.”  But who wants to read all that?

Assuming UK1 sank the Kwangtung transport, what’s the specifics of time and situation by which a East Indies IC becomes “profiable”?  I think there are two situations; one in a KGF, and one in a KJF.  Obviously those are quite different.  For KJF, I think that once US reaches the western Pacific, Japan can use an East Indies IC to bolster its defense of the Pacific Rim with immediate reinforcements.  This is highly theoretical, as I haven’t done any proper analysis of the situation yet - it’s just a FEELING I have that it’s POSSIBLE.  Better than using those IPCs for subs and fighters?  Very possibly not - PROBABLY not - but MAYBE . . . Anyways, I digress.

Let us say UK dispersed its Indian fleet, attacking the Solomons and failing or succeeding (possibly sending the Indian fighter to land on the US carrier at Pearl), either retaking or not retaking Anglo-Egypt because of German bid to Africa, or attacking Borneo.  Regardless, the important thing is that UK dispersed its fleet; the game transposes eventually.  Let us also say that Russia put at most 1 infantry in Burytia, putting 3-4 infantry in Yakut.

Japan has 1 transport on J1 and builds 3 transport 1 tank.  Japan does Pearl light with 1 sub (optional), 1 destroyer, 4-5 fighter, 1 bomber, depending on whether or not the UK fighter went to Pearl.  Japan attacks China with infantry and 1-2 fighters.  Japan attacks Burytia with battleship support shot and two infantry, or if going aggro, infantry and tank.  Noncombat Japan sends 1 battleship 2 carrier 4 fighter to Solomons (this can be blocked by UK Australia transport to New Guinea, which is a KJF indicator; note UK fleet at west of Algeria is KGF indicator because of probable US1 fleet consolidation there). French Indochina is vulnerable to UK invasion.  Manchuria is vulnerable to Russian invasion if the Jap attack on Burytia failed (unlikely).  Burytia is vulnerable to Russian counterattack with fighters from Moscow and Yakut infantry.  There are probably 4 ish Japanese infantry in China that are vulnerable to Russian counterattack.  Japan has at end of J1 - assuming aggro move of dumping tank to Burytia J1, 4 inf 1 art 1 tank.

Before J2, US shows its hand by buying Pacific or Atlantic (note US1 can consolidate fleet to Algeria for a stall play for Africa and still go KJF).  Russia attacks Japan at Burytia or not (if it does, Japan may lose a tank, but Japan plasters the Yakut infantry next turn leaving eastern Russia defenseless and uses the J1-built tank to blitz Soviet Far East next turn while keeping its transports in position), UK attacks Japan or not (Japan can retake French Indochina easily with just two transports plus bomber and battleship support shot and UK will probably not be able to counter, while the Solomon Island carriers move to Japan to escort transports there).  Those are the attack possibilities, so it is likely that at most UK took French Indochina with 1 infantry (which could be prevented with 1 Jap infantry), or perhaps UK flew the UK bomber east on UK1 (a KJF indicator) and used it to help capture French Indochina - regardless.

Japan now has 4 transports and 34 IPC (33 income with China and Burytia and 1 saved) unless UK captured Borneo.  Japan builds 1 transport 5 infantry 2 tank, or with 30 IPC (loss of Borneo) 1 transport 7 infantry, prioritizing for this turn recapture of Borneo if necessary (unfortunate but necessary), protection of the Japanese transports, and moving infantry into Asia.  Fortunately, fighters at Solomon that would probably be of little use otherwise when the US abandons the Pacific can be used against Borneo, but doing so leaves them out of position for J3 attack on Asia.  Alternatively, Japan builds 2 transports 6 infantry or 2 transports 3 infantry 1 tank for a more gradual build in Asia and faster progress in the Atlantic (probably better long-term if the Germans aren’t going for a consolidated push into Caucasus)

If Borneo was captured and UK2 fleet dispersed at beginning of J2, 1 transport heads to Borneo picking up 2 infantry from Phillipine or Japan  joined by Solomon carrier and fighter, 1 transport to French Indochina with 2 Japan ground units joined by Jap battleship and bomber to recapture, 1 transport to Kwangtung unescorted picking up 2 infantry from Phillipine or Japan, 1 transport east of Japan picks up Wake island and offloads Jap infantry, joined by Solomon carrier while Jap air hunts UK fleet.  If Borneo was NOT captured, 2 transports head to French Indochina with everything as described previously excepting you could put 2 transports at French Inodchina and 2 transports east of Japan.  On J3, one of the French Indochina transports picks up East Indies infantry, and the four other transports offload Japan’s units.

Alternatively, with six transports and not enough units to offload from Japan on J3, instead on J2, Japan sends transports south to pickup infantry and attack Australia, in the end putting less into Asia early, but picking up territory on the way.

In any event, to this point, Japan’s been using up most or all of its income.  On J3, if there is resistance in Asia, Japan can build a mix of infantry and tanks or just infantry and an IC or save some IPC towards a future IC.

So this brings us to the midgame; you build an IC on J3 or J4 and start producing 11 units a turn between Japan and probably either French Indochina or India (probably).  Japan’s income is edging to 35+, and with a concentration of IPCs, Japan might be getting some additional income, and the islands are empty J4-5 (possibly with Australia taken by that time).  So you have extra transports (or so it seems), and you’re producing 11 units a turn, pressuring Russia, and there’s not much else to do but buy another industrial complex maybe J6-8.  The question is - should it be East Indies?

I think not.  Even assuming you built a 7th transport for Japan, that means you have 4 transports for Japan and 3 discretionary.  You need at least 2 transports to offload East Indies to India, or 4 transports to offload to Africa’s west coast every turn.  But consider that by J6-8 Japan should be making a serious case for claiming and keeping Persia.

What if, then, instead of using 8 IPC to build an eighth transport to offload 4 units to Africa every turn and 15 IPC to produce 4 units a turn, you instead use 15 IPC to produce 3 units a turn at India (if you don’t already have an IC there), or French Indochina (if you grabbed India early), and leave the 3 transports you have south of Persia?  I think that is preferable.  With even an IC producing 3 units, Japan has a 14 unit capacity, which is 42 IPC pure infantry, and if you want some tanks or artillery mixed in, you’re accounting for 45-50 IPC easily, which is all Japan’s income.

That is to say, if you DO build an IC, I don’t think you need the 1 more unit that can be produced at East Indies.  Nor do I think Japan can afford to buy another transport at that point, as if Japan DOES buy a second IC, all its production capacity will be tied up.

What about the positional advantage of offloading East Indies to Africa?  I don’t think there IS a significant positional advantage, particularly counting the costs involved.  If you put Japanese transports at Persia and drain Persia, Japan can hit anywhere along the east coast of Africa instead of just the northeast coast.  That’s Kenya and Union of South Africa (key is the latter), and any Allied attack into Persia can be countered by units stacked at India plus the transports bringing units back.

True, if Japan holds Caucasus, bleeding Persia bleeds Japan’s reinforcements.  But Japan does not HAVE to bleed Persia; Japan can station transports at French Indochina to bleed there instead.

Additionally, extra Japanese transports can be used to move infantry from French Indochina to Persia, or to threaten or claim Western Canada, or for any number of other reasons.  If need be, they could even sail into the Mediterranean (with an escort)

So - that is, I think that if you lock 6 transports up (4 offloading from Japan and 2 from East Indies), or even 4 at East Indies for a total of 8 transports, I think you greatly decrease Japan’s flexibility and options.  True, you could use the East Indies transports for any of the things I mentioned above, but if East Indies produces ground units, East Indies MUST have at least 2 transports every turn, which means either you build additional transports to maintain flexibility (which even rich Japan may not be able to afford easily), or lock all your transports into relatively inflexible positions.

ZOMG text wall.  :-o

Not even going to try and read all that tonight.

Anyway I find that as Japan I like transports, and lots of them. There’s a whole lot of infantry on the islands to grab, they can threaten US, take Australia, prepare to assault Africa, and contribute to general mobility. Unless I start outstripping the 8 unit limit on Japan I never build ICs. That doesn’t happen till about J4 or 5 though, depending on the game. I don’t see the point of a East Indies IC if the game is true KGF, as by then if things are going as they should be you’ve already pressed through India, Sinkiang, and are pressuring past Yakut into the Russian heartland. Might as well build them on the frontlines.

And sometimes the allies are nice enough to build ICs for you in India/Sinkiang.  :-D