Why are so many people building an Indian IC?

[Driel310]

I just read another after action report in which UK build an IC in India. I don’t get that. How on earth is it possible to hold onto that IC with a decent Japanese player in those games?

Is Japan only going for the islands on J1 or what? I mean you can easily tunnel in 3 inf 1 rtl to Burma, you kill off the fleet before the Indian coast and with your German buddy whiping Egypt on G1 no reinforcements there either. That leaves you with 5 inf, 1 rtl (2 inf from Borneo or East Indies) and a pack ftrs on J2 to take India.

I am interested to hear how those games went when UK did build an IC in India. We have never encountered it nor saw an opportunity to do so.  :wink:

[tin_snips]

from what i’ve seen, it keeps the japanese occupied until:

a) they capture it, or

b) they lose the game

obviously it should only be built if the UK player feels they can defend it long enough, and that japan is spread out enough. i feel it’s a viable strategy. keeps the jap’s in the pacific and out of moscow

[Driel310]

I can understand the effects of the IC, we used it a lot in the old Classic 3rd edition with the CD, but IMHO Japan is opening very weak if UK can build the IC and hold it on J2.

So I am interested in the Japanese opening moves in those games when the IC was build and held.

[tin_snips]

if the japanese go all-out against china, then this leaves time for india to build an IC. obviously if japan pushed for india, or has a lot of forces near this territory, then it wouldn’t be wise to build the IC there

[Bigtiti]

Well, dunno bout india IC
you send like 4 soldiers from Russia (2 kazakh, 2 cauc)
and if japan goes with the 2 full trannys at formosa to india, how are they takin phillipines?
perhaps with 1 inf i armor vs 2 inf, sounds risky
if you loose with japan, US +7
(NO)

[rockrobinoff]

its a big blunder. if you have a look at the board, its pretty clear that japan can force its way into india by turn 2.

now, if japan is being slow or focusing elsewhere, then maybe, but if japan is moving west fast and hard (which it almost sure should be) then india IC is just a gift.

[losttribe04]

The only thing I can think of is Japan feels they need to take China.  I’d let the Chinese keep that crapy real estate and so what if they have 1,000 INF at the end of the game they can’t leave and other allies can’t enter.

It would be just like the impassible spaces on the board.

If Japan is soaking units into China that would explain why the UK is able to buy some time to produce a stocked fortress.

LT

[Driel310]

@Bigtiti:

Well, dunno bout india IC
you send like 4 soldiers from Russia (2 kazakh, 2 cauc)
and if japan goes with the 2 full trannys at formosa to india, how are they takin phillipines?
perhaps with 1 inf i armor vs 2 inf, sounds risky
if you loose with japan, US +7
(NO)

You can take the philliies with 1 tranny from Japan + 1 tranny from Caroline. That way you have 3 inf, 1 arm which should do the job.

Also, Russia sending 4 inf to Persia on R1 seems a bit too much, they need all the inf against the Germans.

[Sime]

@LT04:

I’d let the Chinese keep that crapy real estate and so what if they have 1,000 INF at the end of the game they can’t leave and other allies can’t enter.

I’m pretty sure this is incorrect.  Although Chinese units can’t leave the Chinese territories, other Allied forces can move into the Chinese territories.

[Bigtiti]

@Driel310:

@Bigtiti:

Well, dunno bout india IC
you send like 4 soldiers from Russia (2 kazakh, 2 cauc)
and if japan goes with the 2 full trannys at formosa to india, how are they takin phillipines?
perhaps with 1 inf i armor vs 2 inf, sounds risky
if you loose with japan, US +7
(NO)

You can take the philliies with 1 tranny from Japan + 1 tranny from Caroline. That way you have 3 inf, 1 arm which should do the job.

Also, Russia sending 4 inf to Persia on R1 seems a bit too much, they need all the inf against the Germans.

True, but still…
you can counter ukraine with 3 inf and armor
sometimes it works
but what bout idea to put some (but less then 4) inf go to india, not to make sure bout india IC, but just, for some delaying and stacking

[losttribe04]

@Sime:

@LT04:

I’d let the Chinese keep that crapy real estate and so what if they have 1,000 INF at the end of the game they can’t leave and other allies can’t enter.

I’m pretty sure this is incorrect.  Although Chinese units can’t leave the Chinese territories, other Allied forces can move into the Chinese territories.

I didn’t think the US could enter China but I am still unclear if other Allied units can or not.

LT

[tin_snips]

any nation can enter chinese territory. china just cannot leave its own (unless re-taking, or attacking burma i think)

[losttribe04]

I read the rules that were posted here and you are correct that any allied player can enter China just China can’t leave.

I think that’s a good thing this way Japan just can’t go around.  They have to worry about Allies springing leaks in the Japanese defence.

I think that I am going to have to pull out one of my other US fighters from another A&A game to be the chinese fighter.  In the event the US gets to China before the FTR gets destroyed.

Sorry to derail your topic.

LT

[Sime]

@tin_snips:

china just cannot leave its own (unless re-taking, or attacking burma i think)

Sorry for derailing further, but I just wanted to clarify this.

Besides the territories that they begin with, China can only take 3 other territories - Kiangsu and Manchuria (which are considered belonging to the Chinese at the start of the game, even though Japan occupies them), and Kwangtung (which reverts to British control when occupied by China [or any other Ally]).

[tin_snips]

kwangtung, that’s what i meant. sorry, was up late when replying. and by ‘re-taking’ its own, kiangsu and manchuria are covered

LT, i just nabbed one of the US fighters from revised. it is now my new chinese fighter  8-)

[losttribe04]

@tin_snips:

kwangtung, that’s what i meant. sorry, was up late when replying. and by ‘re-taking’ its own, kiangsu and manchuria are covered

LT, i just nabbed one of the US fighters from revised. it is now my new chinese fighter  8-)

Last night I was thinking of getting into my AAP box and taking one of those fighter’s for China.

[madquest8]

@LT04:

@tin_snips:

kwangtung, that’s what i meant. sorry, was up late when replying. and by ‘re-taking’ its own, kiangsu and manchuria are covered

LT, i just nabbed one of the US fighters from revised. it is now my new chinese fighter  8-)

Last night I was thinking of getting into my AAP box and taking one of those fighter’s for China.

LOL!! a lot of bother for a FTR that gets toasted on J1… LOL ! :-D

[tin_snips]

it doesn’t ALWAYS get destroyed on japans first turn. and it generally lasts a little longer in the 1942 setup also. so having a seperate chinese fighter is handy

[Woodstock]

And to get back on topic: I think the key difference here opposed to Revised is that in AA50, UK moves after Japan.
If Japan moves away from India, going for the China or Russian route, it might be very liable to buy an Indian IC at UK1.

In Revised, the Indian IC pretty much always was a bad idea, as Japan could simply react on it on J1.

[crimhead]

@Woodstock:

In Revised, the Indian IC pretty much always was a bad idea, as Japan could simply react on it on J1.

Unless playing minor victory (which is better balanced than major victory), wherein an Indian factory is essential.

@Woodstock:

And to get back on topic: I think the key difference here opposed to Revised is that in AA50, UK moves after Japan.
If Japan moves away from India, going for the China or Russian route, it might be very liable to buy an Indian IC at UK1.

In some ways, Japan going first hinders the Indian factory.  If UK went first, they might actually get to build in the IC before Japan can capture it.