• I like an IC in South Africa.

    You can usually extricate your Australian fleet and send it to South Africa as well. From there, drop a CV and a plane or even just a few DDs/CAs and you are business peeing in Japan’s pool and threatening to take back the DEI. Its a fairly minimal investment, but it can cause Japan major headaches (assuming the US is playing in the Pacific, which I consider required of the Allies).

    So, IMO, a factory in SA does the most important things for Britain.

    1. It helps retain control of Africa (2 tanks a turn is enough to make it very hard for Italy to take Africa, especially with a minor US/Brit ‘Operation Torch’).

    2. Helps retain or retake Brit possession in Asia. Japan simply cant split her fleet effectively enough to deal with the US and keep the Brits pinned (unless they forgo a KO on China and/or attacking Russia, both of which I think are bad ideas).

    Currently I havent seen a GOOD answer to a Brit IC in SA. Three games out of three, the Allies have won with that strat. I have yet to have fight against it yet. Twice I was Britain using it, and once I was the US and the UK player and I made a mess out of Japan.

    I highly recommend trying it in most ‘standard’ games. If the Germans try something silly and starting BB survives (or both the CA/DD in Gib), then I’d prolly go with a more ‘traditional’ Brit game. But barring that, drop the IC in SA and then start creating ‘harassment’ forces in England as well. Generally I’ve found that the income I save by not losing Africa and/or recapturing at least one of the DEI area is enough to pay for the units being produced at the factory so its not like it really slows you down in your efforts to land on the Continent.


  • An India IC build wouldn’t work against my basic (non-crazy) strategy.  I would do Transports to Kwantung, Burma, Philipines, Borneo, and East Indies on J1.  On J2, the Borneo and East Indies Transports shift the 4 Infantry to India, along with the forces in Burma(1-4 units) and a Fighter or two if need be.

  • Moderator

    I’m not a huge fan of a round 1 UK IC.  I think Ind/Aus would be nice but I think most Japan players will be in position to take them on J2.  IMO they are just too conditional to build a solid strategy around.  As for Safr, I’m against that b/c I think transports are far more effective.  2 trns only cost 14 ipc and you can get 4 units to Afr.  Even if you only dedicate 1 trn to Afr, you still get 2 units which is the same as an IC.  Also with trns you aren’t locked in to defending the IC later or left with a something that outlived its usefulness.


  • 2 trns only cost 14 ipc

    Well this part isn’t exactly true. With TPs you have a very high up-front investment you need to make building up a fleet to protect the TPs, whereas you do not with the IC. This needs to be factored into their cost somehow.

    Your other points are definitely valid though, and I agree with your overall conclusion about TPs being more effective.

  • Moderator

    I would think in most games you should have to buy fleet protection anyway.  You already will have 1 trn (either sz 2 or sz 9) to protect.

    To counter that, an IC might have to be protected from a SBR.  An Axis bomber in Afr could make the 15 IPC IC cost 21 or worse UK has to periodically pay 2-4 in damge just to use it.


  • Yup, I can’t disagree with any of that.

    I was merely pointing out that a direct cost comparison between the two is quite difficult.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    To counter that, an IC might have to be protected from a SBR.  An Axis bomber in Afr could make the 15 IPC IC cost 21 or worse UK has to periodically pay 2-4 in damge just to use it.

    I’d prefer have that bomber SBR saf than SBR soviet ICs or killing units, even if I don’t have a aa gun in saf. And you could try ferry the one from Australia anyway


  • I think an IC in SA is a heck of a lot more versatile AND less vulnerable than 2 TRs. IMO England pretty much needs to keep her fleet farther north most of the time to take Norway/Finland and to constantly harass France/Northern while still threatening Germany/Poland/Karelia (if lost).

    Also, the IC can build minor navy to threaten the SoPac, alone making it worth the price of admission IMO. :)


  • I am another fan of the South African IC. It adds a lot more flexibility than the somewhat cost equivalent of 2 transports in the Atlantic. The IC in S. Africa can produce troops in Africa from round 2. An Atlantic navy may or may not be able to ferry troops to Africa in round 2. Once Africa is secured it can be used to sneak out a few naval units to pester Japan with Also.

    I am a big fan of an Australian IC. However there is a caveat to that. The only time to place an Australian IC is if things go wrong for Japan and it appears that you can hold such. This does not happen in many games but in the ones it does happen in I feel the UK should invest in such. By producing a few units in Australia you can bring it to the point Japan will not want to invest the resources necessary to captured such. Australia is also the hardest to achieve for the all of National Objective so if for the cost of an IC and a few units Australia can be held against Japan this will pay for itself when the other objectives are met.


  • I build my factory in NWY

    it means you can get 5 1/2 boats every turn into germany

    it’s good as it build pressure

    but it depends on what happens in africa

    if they do turn 1 egypt i think it’s not good in nwy

    but realistically your only options are SAF
    and Nwy

    but it depends on what the axis are doing.

    South africa can be a risky manuever and if i am going KGF i probably don’t need it with americas in africa.


  • The more I think about it I feel an IC should be built on turn 2 if your fleet is off in SZ 12 or 4 and should be built where you will get the most out of it.

  • Moderator

    I would like to amend my thoughts on an India IC.  Before I said:

    @DarthMaximus:

    I think Ind/Aus would be nice but I think most Japan players will be in position to take them on J2.  IMO they are just too conditional to build a solid strategy around.

    And now I feel, even if you know you can hold it beyond J2-3, it is still not worth it.  The only way it might be viable would be if you know J won’t have a shot until after J3 and you go all out with the US in the Pac.  But this opens up a can of worms in the Atlantic.

    In my tourney game, I had a very favorable setup for a UK IC on Ind so I decided to try it and was able to pull Egy survivors as well as 2 troops from Aus to Ind (for a UK 2 landing).  I even got my ftrs/bom there and continued to buy inf + ftrs for att/def and I still needed Russian help.  I was also able to do a significant attack on Japan killing a bunch of rt/arm in Bur setting J back another turn BUT even that wasn’t enough.  Japan still cleared Ind later and can pretty much walk in next turn, which I think will be rd 7.  Granted China is starting to come back a bit and Jap has been severly slowed but the Ind IC isn’t holdable and the Allies are taking a beating in the Atlantic since the UK had to spend so many resources on defending the IC in the earlier rounds.

    It’s an interesting game and Russia is going to end up being pretty strong, but I pretty much did all I could to hold the IC and it still falls to a determined J player.

    As I said, a possible alternative would have been to go all out Pac with the US but seeing as how Ger/Ita have kept the US (with minor UK forces) in the Atlantic at bay, with no US presence in the Atlantic I think London would be in serious jeopardy, making a Kill UK First strat very possible.


  • @Gallo:

    I’m on the opinion that an UK IC in India is nothing but a nice present for Hirohito… but if you want to walk that walk…

    a) Since Japan moves first then UK (in 1941), watch out what Japan does on its first turn… they may not commit everything against India on their first move.

    If an Indian factory seems soundable…

    you should have moved two USSR infantry to Persia on Turn1
    then send as many UK fighters to India via London-Moscow (turn1), Moscow-India (turn2)

    Be aggressive against Japan everywhere else…

    one big step-back about the India IC is that it requires a big commitment from the UK… trying on holding India you may lost Africa to the Italians and you may not be able to mount a soundable attack against Germany (specially if Germany obliterates the Royal Navy during its first turn)

    1. moving UK fighters + bomber to a Russian territory = no 5 IPC NO for Russia if you use NOs !

    2. your tank + fighter survived ? What the heck did the Germans roll?
      Statistically a German attack with tank from France + Inf from Morocco, all units from Lybia + Bomber from Germany will end with either German tank + bomber or only German bomber, UK units will normally die.

    3. Why did Japan moved all against India and forego other targets? I don’t see.
      Japan can easily take Philippines (3Inf + art [from Japan] + 2 fighters). East Indies + Borneo will be taken both with 2 Inf. Use 2 Inf + 2 fighters for Kwangtung attack, ignore Russia, but use your transport and Cruiser from SZ 61 and attack Burma.
      Attack UKs Indian fleet with 2 fighters and land them on AC that moved SZ61 to SZ 37.

    Japan is ready to take India in R2 with 1-2 Inf + art from Burma, 2 Inf from Borneo and 2 Inf from East Indies, a cruiser and 4-5 fighters (one may be lost when attacking UKs DD + transport), 2 fighters from AC in SZ 37 + 2-3 fighters from FIC.

    Yes, UKs AA gun may shoot down another fighter, but the attack is overwhelming.

    If UK pulls out everything - are they strong enough to attack 7 ground units ??
    Even if - Japan will capture India slightly und bring new units from Japan to FIC (17 IPC = 1 Transport + 2 tanks) or build 2 tanks in FIC if an IC was build there on round 1 (an interesting opening move !)

    So, how to protect that round 1 IC in India?


  • The other nice possibility for the IC is SAF is i’ve noticed alot of players leave the UK SZ12 fleet live.  That fleet can head down to the SAF IC to link up with more boats built on turn 2, which is about the only way and probably best way to get boats into the pacific for the UK (the aussie boats can even get there too, just leave US planes in range to sink the jap carrier if it decides to hit it).

    This could give you a navy on turn 2 there of 2 destroyers, 1 cruisier, 1 AC (your planes flown down turn 1 or US planes from Australia), 1 trans, +1 more boat.  More than Japan’s typical AC and/or cruiser floating in that area.

    Now it wouldn’t be until turn 4 that they could take anything, but can anyone think of ideas to go along with this?


  • UK really needs an Asian or Africa IC if it wants to be successful.  If by turn 3 or 4 all of its colonies and IPCs are gone there’s no way in can viable for the rest of the game and that basically forces the USA to play helper for Russia and take on Japan.  UK without colonies = Italy, and the Allies can’t survive long in '41 with that.

    I’m a huge fan of the E. Indies IC, it takes a little luck and planning to make it happen but it puts the UK in a perfect position to retake Australia, Borneo, India and eventually the Phillipines over time.  4 UK units pumping out of the farthest east island territory plus the USA on the other side makes Japan’s life incredibly difficult.  The opportunity for an E. Indies IC doesn’t present itself too often, but if you’re guaranteed to hold it until your next turn that could be a game ender for Japan.


  • I am torn at this point in a game with deciding if I should invest $15 against the Japanese to hold either India for a few turns or Australia for much longer.

    I could spend the $15 on a much stronger UK Atlantic navy.  However the UK2 income will be very good this turn (even with a safer/weaker UK atlantic move and the UK IC buy in India/Australia)

    This is a 15 VC game, so getting an IC in Australia and making the continent secure holds one key VC.  Australia is usually one of those Vc’s that once lost, is lost forever.  I think I can keep that from happening, but at what cost?

    Is it worth it against a Germany that is fattening up (more inf buys than tanks)?  Africa is still mostly in allied hands (Germany did poorly in Egypt G1).

    It is only through some lucky rolls (and positioning to be able to take advantage of these rolls), that I am in this position.  In other words, this decision normally would not be in play.

    Maybe I should count the VCs and see if the investment in Australia will make the difference….


  • @DarthMaximus:

    I would like to amend my thoughts on an India IC.  Before I said:

    @DarthMaximus:

    I think Ind/Aus would be nice but I think most Japan players will be in position to take them on J2.  IMO they are just too conditional to build a solid strategy around.

    And now I feel, even if you know you can hold it beyond J2-3, it is still not worth it.  The only way it might be viable would be if you know J won’t have a shot until after J3 and you go all out with the US in the Pac.  But this opens up a can of worms in the Atlantic.

    In my tourney game, I had a very favorable setup for a UK IC on Ind so I decided to try it and was able to pull Egy survivors as well as 2 troops from Aus to Ind (for a UK 2 landing).  I even got my ftrs/bom there and continued to buy inf + ftrs for att/def and I still needed Russian help.  I was also able to do a significant attack on Japan killing a bunch of rt/arm in Bur setting J back another turn BUT even that wasn’t enough.  Japan still cleared Ind later and can pretty much walk in next turn, which I think will be rd 7.  Granted China is starting to come back a bit and Jap has been severly slowed but the Ind IC isn’t holdable and the Allies are taking a beating in the Atlantic since the UK had to spend so many resources on defending the IC in the earlier rounds.

    It’s an interesting game and Russia is going to end up being pretty strong, but I pretty much did all I could to hold the IC and it still falls to a determined J player.

    As I said, a possible alternative would have been to go all out Pac with the US but seeing as how Ger/Ita have kept the US (with minor UK forces) in the Atlantic at bay, with no US presence in the Atlantic I think London would be in serious jeopardy, making a Kill UK First strat very possible.

    Darth,

    Your experience was from about a month ago.  Did you end up winning that game with the allies?

    I think that because defense is cheaper/easier than offense, with good positioning, the allies can hold on much longer than one might think.  Especially in a longer game (RE:15 VCs).

    Along these lines of thinking, the $15 spent on the India IC in your game might have been a good investment as it slowed Japan down considerably.  Let’s just pick a number and say Japan was delayed 3 rounds from putting pressure on Russia, at $15, that’s only $5 IPCs a turn.  I think that’s a pretty good investment.
    Once the building does fall, unless Japan has a gun in range, the allies can turn around and make the building a little more costly to Japan when they do take it over by bombing it to -$6.  Now the building is only $9 gain for Japan.

    Again, still debating the cost and usefulness of a UK IC on UK2 versus a bigger navy investment.

  • Moderator

    I ended up losing the game.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13595.0

    As I recall the German air gave me fits in the Atlantic with fleet movements and eventually once India did fall, it all came crashing down.  I’d have to look over my game again, but I think I held India until rd 8 or 9.

    Now, I bought ftrs/inf for Ind thinking the att/def would be beneficial since you can only place 3 units, but it turned out that I ended up having to tie up most of my UK airforce in and around India making it hard to attack Ger or defend the Atlantic, it just isn’t easy to get ftrs from India to Sz 12 or Sz 6.

    I suppose if you go all inf for Ind and count on heavier Russian support it might hold out.  I tried to limit my Russian support.  I had a couple inf and tanks but tried to keep it mostly UK/US.

    I also didn’t do much with the US in the Pac, which may have been a mistake with a UK IC in India.  I think Japan had a pretty good setup in Rd 1 to threaten Sz 56 (I think he took HI in rd 1 as well), and with the lack of UK ships in the Atlantic I pulled the US AC.

    I’m still thinking that tying up 3 units in production for the UK for Ind (or another IC) might be too much.  Assuming you earn 25-30, that leaves you with only 16-21 for Ger.  Throw in a couple J SBRs and you might have to pay 6 just to place 3 in India.  But as I said it would probably be better if you commit heavy with the US to the Pac as well and any or all Atlantic dropoffs should just go to Alg where it is easier for both the UK/US to protect.  My mistake might have been not committing to a cripple Japan strat.  Do the bare minimum against Germany and get the US to Sol while UK still holds India.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    I’m still thinking that tying up 3 units in production for the UK for Ind (or another IC) might be too much.  Assuming you earn 25-30, that leaves you with only 16-21 for Ger.  Throw in a couple J SBRs and you might have to pay 6 just to place 3 in India.  But as I said it would probably be better if you commit heavy with the US to the Pac as well and any or all Atlantic dropoffs should just go to Alg where it is easier for both the UK/US to protect.  My mistake might have been not committing to a cripple Japan strat.  Do the bare minimum against Germany and get the US to Sol while UK still holds India.

    Thanks for your reply.  You raise some good points about opportunity cost in the Atlantic and about the range of units.  I have found that to be one of the bigger challenges for the allies as units in one theatre are pretty much committed to that theatre do to the extra spaces added to the AA50 map.

    I have made a US1 buy all against japan, even moved the US tpt and DD from the east coast towards japan.  So I am at the cross roads of continuing down the asia resistance path with UK’s help or the strong Atlantic fleet to threaten Europe.  It is hard to argue about the importance of a strong threat on Germanys back door.  As the allies, you should more often than not, error on the side of caution.

    At least that USED to be the mind set in the past since the longer the game, the better the chance for the allies.  There’s different Economies involved with National Objectives, so I have seen cases where even in the 8th round of a game, the axis have the economic advantage.

    I am reminded of the U505 post about getting out of the old ‘A&A’ strategies and re-thinking the game anew.  If there EVER was a chance for a second round UK IC to be put down in a game, this game would be it.

    I need to look closer at the game and what can happen in the next few round(s) for Japan.

  • Moderator

    One last thing, if you go all out for Japan/Asia you can usually afford to lose Moscow (at least you could in Revised).  Obviously it is better if you don’t, but if the UK/US control SE Asia and the US has forced the J fleet back to Japan then it is usually only a matter of time for Japan.  So a late round loss of Mos where Germany is forced to kill off most of its units in taking Mos or Cauc can help.  As long as you keep London safe it is a good trade to make, assuming Japan is crippled to the point that thier fleet can’t leave the home island seazone or you sunk their fleet.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 11
  • 31
  • 9
  • 23
  • 29
  • 9
  • 17
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.6k

Users

40.1k

Topics

1.7m

Posts