From: pmenard@cse.unl.edu (Patrick Menard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: ICs vs Transports
Date: 16 Nov 1992 07:57:31 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>There has recently been suggestion that Japan is better off
>>building transports instead of building Industrial Complexes
>>on the mainland.  I can see the effeciency arguments for 
>>transports on a cost basis, but I think IC's are neccessary
>>for a more important reason -- time.  Building infantry and
>>shipping them accross by boat delays each infantry one turn

>Perhaps we misread the rules.  The way we play, you can not build inf
>with the factory the same turn you build the factory.  Since you can
>build the inf the same turn you build the transport, there is no bonus
>turn.  Furthermore, since you usually don't hold manchuria the first
>turn, you can't build the factory in a good place.  Furthermore, you

French Indo-China is an excellent place to build a factory.  It offers the
same (if not better) benefits of building in Manchuria.  It is the same
distance from Moscow, and is closer to India and Africa.  I have actually
had Japan take over half of Africa in a game and effectively taken Britain
out of the game.(Germany took the Northern half)  It is a good policy to land
troops there on the first turn (especially if Manchuria has been taken) and
also another fighter or two.(maybe even the troops in Kwangtung if you're
really worried, I usually don't, to make it seem like a factory is vulnerable
with only four men and two fighters (which it isn't, but it looks like it)))
It is also of great benefit to have a factory on the mainland, as it prevents
the possibility of transports being blown to bits by the US.  It is still good
to have transports, as that increases your production even more, but its better
to build you tanks on the mainland and transport troops across.(since the
transports can handle two troops at a time, you need fewer of them for that
task)

>have to build, or ship an AA gun, more time wasted.  Against good allied
>play (i.e. bring over their original bombers when you build a factory,
>attack Manchuria...) there is no competition.  Furthermoe, the
>efficiency is important, if I build 4 inf, and you build 3, next turn I
>have one more advanced inf than you do.

The key is to also build tanks.  a good army has balance, and tanks pack a lot
more punch than men do, for only 2 more ipc.  you still need men for fodder,
but you can build them in Japan and troop them across.

>>as compared to building them directly on the continent.
>>Building and shipping tanks is even worse, since if built
>>on the continent they can move two areas towards the
>Does not seem different, I have to build them 1 turn before you.  Since
>my building is more efficient, AA gun, no 1 turn wait, etc, this is no
>problem.  I do like a factory for tanks later (in India or Manchuria)
>since they build 3, and transports get over 2.  India is good since it
>is advanced.
>>front right after being built.  (Sometimes this means they
>>can be in active combat immediately.)  
>The threat mobile threat the transports cause (i.e. 7 loaded transports
>go to Alaska when the US want to build more inf on east coast) also
>helps Germany survive.
>>Time is of critical importance because the game for the axis
>>is a race against time -- Germany is going to fall, the question
>>is how long will it take?  Japan has to put pressure on Russia
>Yes this is correct.
>>as quickly as possible, and that one turn delay in getting
>>units on continent -- especially the tanks -- can be critical.
>The tanks are not as crucial as the inf, inf take hits better both on
>offense and defense, and Japan has lots of planes.  Certainly Japan
>wants tanks at some point, but not until at least turn 4 (at least
>against good allied play, i.e. immediately attack Japan twice).

Usually by turn 4 the game is effectively decided.(in the allies favor) unless
you use the "Russia no attack" rule, then turn 4 might have an effect on the
outcome.

>>-David
>>(dagibbs@quantum.qnx.com)


>Erik
>---=

Shadow