triplea supports a game similar to AA50.
UK & US IC's
-
Has anyone tried or seen the Allies employ a strategy of buying a IC’s for Alaska & Australia on US and UK1?
Just curious to see how Japan responded to this if it’s been played out.
-
If I was Japan I would be giddy at getting a free IC in Australia on turn 2.
I do not like an Alaskan IC by the US or Japan. Although I could possibly change my mind about the latter in AA50. In Every AAR or AA50 game I have played whomever has built the Alaskan IC has eventually lost it. That is 100% of the time and covers several years of playing revised. It only produces 2 units, although with the factory tech and ability to produce 4 units that may skew things. I still do not see a true need for either power to purchase an Alaskan IC.
-
If I was Japan I would be giddy at getting a free IC in Australia on turn 2.
I do not like an Alaskan IC by the US or Japan. Although I could possibly change my mind about the latter in AA50. In Every AAR or AA50 game I have played whomever has built the Alaskan IC has eventually lost it. That is 100% of the time and covers several years of playing revised. It only produces 2 units, although with the factory tech and ability to produce 4 units that may skew things. I still do not see a true need for either power to purchase an Alaskan IC.
I was thinking that the Australian IC could be held longer than that by reinforcing it with the addition of the American fighters from SZ44 and the Hawaiian Island. Fly the WUS and EUS fighters to the Carrier left in SZ44 to aid in defending the IC if it doesn’t fall on J2. If it doesn’t you could have 4 US and 2 UK fighters on Australia by the end of round 2. Also if the Japanese player got sloppy on J1 and left any transports naked or defended by only a DD in SZ’s 48 or 51 they would be in range of the WUS Bomber and could be sunk on US1 while landing it safely in Australia.
With regards to the Alaska IC…I actually want Japan to come after it. If Japan is putting resources into taking the Australian and Alaskan IC that less units being shipped over to Asia, giving China and Russia much need time to defend itself. IMO if Japan takes the Alaskan IC it can be taken back relatively easily as Japan wouldn’t be able to produce or transport enough units to hold the Alaskan IC.
-
The way I play J1 I will have up to 6 fighters to hit Australia with and at an absolute minimum 3 infantry from Borneo and E. Indies. I also should have a cruiser and battleship bombardment as well. I like when the US gets cocky like that and thinks it can protect Australia. That is 20 IPCs worth of US fighters eliminated early.
As far as Alaska, It can not do much to hurt me and I can start trading Alaska on my terms with units out of Japan after I have my mainland ICs up and running. In other words in Round 3 if I so desire. Short of very funky dice China will not be producing infantry after J2 anyhow.
-
The way I play J1 I will have up to 6 fighters to hit Australia with and at an absolute minimum 3 infantry from Borneo and E. Indies. I also should have a cruiser and battleship bombardment as well. I like when the US gets cocky like that and thinks it can protect Australia. That is 20 IPCs worth of US fighters eliminated early.
As far as Alaska, It can not do much to hurt me and I can start trading Alaska on my terms with units out of Japan after I have my mainland ICs up and running. In other words in Round 3 if I so desire. Short of very funky dice China will not be producing infantry after J2 anyhow.
Oh OK I see, so what your saying is that my theory of an Alaskan/Austalian IC combo taking Japanese units away from Asia is flawed because if Japan wishes to do so they can just drop an IC on the mainland to get units there……OK.
But I am still curious to see if you or anyone else ran across someone tying this. Or is it so flawed that no one will probably try it?
-
An IC in Australia means that unless Japan diverts precious land units and transports to attack a well defended Australia, they will soon have Australian troops recapturing Indonesia.
An IC in Alaska means that unless Japan diverts resources towards defending Japan and Manchuria, the US can hit them with ease.
An IC in both means that Japan could rapidly prove to be overstretched, as they have to defend against a threat to their Capital and Manchuria, and a separate threat to Indonesia, on top of their usual difficulties.
This strategy would probably have to be turned into a KJF, because it requires a removal of focus on Germany and Italy.
-
What sea zone are you putting your carriers in where 6 figs can hit on J2, seems in my experience most players keep one or two carriers a bit north for that.
-
sz 37 / sz 51 = 5 ftr
-
Both those IC’s are useless. Any good Japan player will take Australia as soon as possible and the Alaska IC won’t threathen invasion. If you want to distract Japan, multiple US fleets are needed to take back islands and a solid contribution from Russia toward India and China (which Russia can afford to do in the '41 setup). It doesn’t take many Russians to hold four Chinese territories and 2 INF a turn add up quickly when there’s 6-8 Russian units beside it. Japan must be stretched but the IC’s in Australia and/or Alaska won’t do it.
-
If Japan is the slow axis power to kill russia, and germany is the fast one, wouldn’t taking british IPCs away from the german fight where its nice and close, to australia where you are building boats, just be a gift wrapped package for germany?
-
If Japan is the slow axis power to kill russia, and germany is the fast one, wouldn’t taking british IPCs away from the german fight where its nice and close, to australia where you are building boats, just be a gift wrapped package for germany?
My thoughts exactly. Especially if he’s enforcing it with 2 fighters at R2 as he said, that would mean 15 ipc + 20 ipc lost from the Euro front. UK can’t afford that…
-
I dont know…IMO, the econs in this game are one big intertwined mess. If the Brits are investing in the Pacific then they are likely not losing money as quickly in Africa and Mid East (or even Pacific). Japan cant be strong enough to take a reinforced Australia as well as pressure Russia, maintain the drive on India/China AND fight the US in the Pacific. She simply doesnt have THAT kind of econ that early in the game.
Soooo, a ‘weaker’ Britain in Europe (but stronger in the Pacific) means less pressure on Russia from behind and more Brit money down the road to annoy Germany with. I dont think its as cut and dried as it seems on the surface.
That said, I’m still not big fan of an Aussie IC since I think the same basic effect can be gained with a South African IC without the potential vulnerability and with more ability to help preserve Africa.
-
A standard German and Japan approach has UK back at 35 ipc at the end of UK1.
With just the 43 ipc starting income…that money is much needed to build a reasonable force that can and protect it’s transport vessels, and be a threat to Germany at the same time.Then again…I am only in my first game a sUK as we speak…
-
I’m beginning to think that this strategy is better if you build the IC in India. There is no way for Japan to take India if Russia moves a few of their units in, if they do, Japan won’t be able to take it before B2 occurs and India starts getting reinforced heavily.
-
If russia does that she will be too spread out. The best way for the UK to help in asia is to keep russia alive long enough for the US to gain control of the south pacific and to let russia feed china.
-
and India IC slows down Japan but at what cost? imfo its totally useless UK1 ( in the long run)
-
I actually enjoy it when the UK throws an IC in India. Not only will I be able to take it with Japan in T3 or T4 (with the help of an E. Indies IC, of course) but it also forces the UK player to build 3 units there for as long as they have it. Those 10-15 IPC’s spent their each turn take too much away from the Atlantic. Let the US focus on Japan and the UK can deal with Germany.
Japan cannot just simply match US naval units in the Pacific. After the third US turn I usually have 1 battleship, 2 loaded carriers, 2 destroyers and 2-3 subs off the coast of Alaska, with 3 bombers in Alaska and another 3 maybe 4 subs that I just built in WUS. If Japan kept all their navy at home then sure they can attack my fleet but at what cost, I’m rolling 5 at 4 or less with at least 6 fodder. Plus my bombers and subs will counterattack what’s left (likely no destroyers). The first 4 turns the US player must go all out in the Pacific to even come close to slowing down Japan. The last 4 games I’ve played with the allies this plan has worked.
-
I actually enjoy it when the UK throws an IC in India. Not only will I be able to take it with Japan in T3 or T4 (with the help of an E. Indies IC, of course) but it also forces the UK player to build 3 units there for as long as they have it. Those 10-15 IPC’s spent their each turn take too much away from the Atlantic. Let the US focus on Japan and the UK can deal with Germany.
Japan cannot just simply match US naval units in the Pacific. After the third US turn I usually have 1 battleship, 2 loaded carriers, 2 destroyers and 2-3 subs off the coast of Alaska, with 3 bombers in Alaska and another 3 maybe 4 subs that I just built in WUS. If Japan kept all their navy at home then sure they can attack my fleet but at what cost, I’m rolling 5 at 4 or less with at least 6 fodder. Plus my bombers and subs will counterattack what’s left (likely no destroyers). The first 4 turns the US player must go all out in the Pacific to even come close to slowing down Japan. The last 4 games I’ve played with the allies this plan has worked.
Actually I’ve play tested the IC in India several times and if Japan is played right the IC will fall on J2. An IC in India is nothing more than a free gift for Japan.
-
If England chooses to place an IC anywhere which I don’t recommend, the ideal places are South Africa for battling over Africa against the Axis or possibly Australia with strong US support to combat the Pacific and stop Japanese island control. I just think UK money could be better spent building and controlling the Atlantic.
-
IMO, the only way the India IC is viable is if Japan has some bad rolls on J1 making either a J2 attack impossible or highly unlikely. Another key would be if Sz 30 is safe from attack b/c then you can pull 1 inf, 1 rt from Aus to land on Ind (+3 new units) and probably 1 ftr/1 bom. Not sure how long it will hold out but in this scenerio Russia may be able to spare 1-2 inf starting in round 2 or at the very least stack a couple armor in Cauc for emergency if added defense is needed.
I suppose if Japan does roll bad you can maybe go all out and try a KJF with the India IC and US dropping a major fleet in Sz 56. I think in this case India would be very tough to crack without sacrificing the Pacific to the US.
Suggested Topics
