UK's opening round

[miragehunter]

I’m sure that this has been asked before.  For the UK’s first turn do you think its wise to go after Borneo, New Guinea, Norway, and the Baltic fleet all in the first turn.  Or is it really stretching yourself to much.  I would imagine that the Baltic Fleet should be first priority, especially if Germany puts an AC there first turn.  But the Borneo, New Guinea, and transport off the coast in asia I think should gone after.  I look at it as,  “if Japan gets bugged enough maybe the US will maybe get a fighting chance in pearl harbor”.  Or is that a waste of (much needed) resources even though you’ll probably get 5 more IPC’s out this quick push scheme.  I think that is good opening strategy in my opinion.  But what does the rest of the community think on this topic.

[Zhukov44]

Key objectives for UK1 should be….

1. Sink the Baltic fleet.  Obviously you can’t if Germany gets a destroyer or carrier–in that case buy planes and try for it UK2 if possible

2. Get units into Africa if at all possible.  Unless Axis is going aggressive, securing Africa is Uk’s #1 priority in the early turns.  In addition, landing in Norway is pretty risky if Germany still has some Baltic fleet.

3. Retake Egypt if possible.  If there are 2 or less German units sitting in Egypt you have to seriously consider attacking with 3 infantry and 1 fighter.  This is vital because there are a lot of IPCs at stake–if you can take Egypt then Germany can’t blitz Africa until they recapture Egypt, which costs them vital IPCs.

4. If you don’t attack Egypt, Borneo is a good alternative destination for your India fleet transport.  New Guinea…sending a tranny there can help spread the Japs thin but I’m not sure the 1 ipc territory is worth the risk when you could send that transport towards Africa or save it to link up with the USA fleet.

5. Killing the Jap submarine in 45 is a good goal also–this helps USA at Pearl.  You can attack it with the Uk sub and/or the fighter from India (landing on the USA carrier, thus strengthening the USA fleet).

[a44bigdog]

Norway and the Baltic feet have nothing to do with New Guinea and Borneo. There are no units that can participate in both theaters so that kills the overstretch argument.

Unless I have a very specific idea in mind for the UK Pacific fleet and unify in seazone 30 I like to hit Borneo and New Guinea. Rarely will I hit Egypt. My reason for this is that units from the US and England can quickly enough deal with the Axis in Africa. However, hitting Borneo and New Guinea can be a big headache for Japan. Normally when I attack both of these territories I use the Destroyer to attack the seazone 59 transport and send the fighter to Borneo. That practically insures the 4 IPCs for Borneo and with bringing up the carrier for the fighter to land on increases the headache factor for Japan.

I normally take my UK forces south to seazone 12 and Algeria. I prefer to let the Soviets take Norway even if it means Germany has it an extra turn or two. My reasoning for this is that the Soviets can benefit more for the IPCs from Norway than the UK and that the US and UK can liberate Africa.

[miragehunter]

Thanks for the responses.  I think that I like that new strategy for going after Borneo and New Guinea.  The idea of getting an extra 5 IPC’s is nice even thou I will loose my fleet in Pacific.  Plus it helps the US in Pearl harbor.  If this approach is taken.  What about putting a IC in Australia to really make the Japanese come after the UK instead of the US.  I know that is a controversial buy for that territory.  But it might be worth it (especially if you have colonial garrison).  What is the consensus with the community on that one.  Keep the suggestions coming.  And thanks again!

[KGB]

If there are 3 German units in Egypt, killing them off gives you a tremendous advantage. Germany can practically write off Africa in this case. I find attacking 4 units too risky. Then again, I like putting 6 Russian infantry in Bury, in which case countering Egypt comes at a steep price for the USSR  :roll:

Generally, I think it’s better to wait with sz 5 until turn 2 (unless you want to have Russia in Nwy on R2). 2 extra figs just make that attack way better.

As for the Pacific - there are so many variations…

[Blitz2]

Unless your going for an IC India strategy, I highly suggest teching for Rockets until you get them with UK, buying 3 dice a round. Now most would advise against this considering the safer and more reliable approach is to simply build ships to threaten German mainland. I have a thread going on specifically debating this. Move your india aa gun towards caucus regardless of whether you got the tech to anticipate it, allowing you to bomb both berlin and rome, and that’s not even counting any bombers you might have.

[miragehunter]

That is a controversial strategy (big time!).  But i like it!  I remember games past of mine where i getting robbed blind by the Germans with rockets.  It feels nice to be able to give them a taste of what they are giving out :-D.  What are your thoughts on an Australian IC.  Thats a big gamble, I know.  But, no guts no glory as they say.

[Blitz2]

I had an Australian IC before but it proved worthless. You spend all your 2 purchases there on inf to make sure japan doesn’t crash fighters with bombardments and take it. If you take borneo, new guinea,  and kill japans lone sub/trans it could prove really good however.

[Zhukov44]

@miragehunter:

That is a controversial strategy (big time!).  But i like it!  I remember games past of mine where i getting robbed blind by the Germans with rockets.  It feels nice to be able to give them a taste of what they are giving out :-D.  What are your thoughts on an Australian IC.  Thats a big gamble, I know.  But, no guts no glory as they say.

Aussie IC is a bad idea I think–-way too far away from the action.  India IC is much more viable and makes for a fun game.  Remember that if you build India you need to have the Soviets advancing on Bury/Sink, and you need a few Soviet tanks on Cauc to liberate India in case the Japs take it.  You also need some USA presence…either through fighters flown in, a factory at Sink, a Pacific naval offensive, or some combo of these.

[xenon]

Harrassing Japan with National Advantages
Open path for KJF

UK has:
Enigma Decoded
Colonial Garrison

1. Enigma decoded is used in Egypt on Germany´s first turn. Tank and plane retreat to Trans-Jordan
2. Colonial Garrison goes to India

UK 1 Combat in Asia:
1. Attack French-Indochina with 3 inf from India + 1 Plane from carrier + the one retreated from Egypt. Against 2 inf, 1 fighter FIC will most probably be taken with one inf left.
2. Attack japanese sub with uk sub. The australian trans could be used as fodder
3. Attack the japanese transport in seazone 59 with carrier + destroyer

UK 1 Non Combat
1. Move the tank from Trans-Jordan to India.
2. Land one fighter on carrier in SZ 59. With 3,3,4 on defense tough to attack
3. Move indian transport to 36. Blocks the japanese East Indies fleet from major combat
4. Move bmb from Uk eastwards to threaten SZs 50/51

Effects:
1. Japan down one fighter, one sub. Fighter means less punch in any one of the japanese attacks. sub means less fodder at pearl
2. East Indies battleship will not be able to participate in the SZ 59 fight.
3. Less infantry available for attack on China.
4. If FIC is not retaken the tk from india could attack China or Kwangtung on UK2. Build at least one more tk at india complex to increase this thread.
5. Japan now has to attack FIC and China
6. Japan has to kill british fleet or will not be able to build transports as there will be no capital ships to protect them if pearl harbour is attacked.

Sum up:
1. More fights for japan. Risk of cascade dice failure.
2. Japan has to choose:
2.1 Either attack british fleet to be able to build transports and skip pearl.  Even buying an additional carrier will not help against an attacking  force of destroyer, 2 fighters, carrier and bomber as UK will be willing to loose all of it to slow down japanese build up.
This will open the KJF path for the US.
2.2 Or attack pearl and build a factory. In this second scenario the british fleet and the american one at the east coast could unite in SZ 57 on turn 2. This is the slower path for KJF

[miragehunter]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions they are good.  The whole idea of the Aussie IC sounded good an all.  But thanks to your post you have shown me the path to enlightenment on a better UK strategy! :-D  The game group I’m in does national advantages, but only one.  I will see if they are game on trying to do it with 2.  I do like thou the idea of colonial garrison in India or buying an IC on the first turn there.  Thanks again everyone

[Butcher]

If you’re looking to go the route of an IC, you could build in South Africa. India is, IMO, too easily captured by Japan early. S. Afr can’t be hit early in the game by Japan, can contest Africa, and can punish Japan if they don’t send enough forces to the Indian Ocean and Southern Asia.

[jbriggs]

I say always build an IC in India turn 1.  Build 1 transport, 1 infantry, and 1 artillary to place in SZ3 at end of turn 1.  Use your carrier fighter and sink the transport in SZ59.  land it back on carrier.  Bring your destroyer from 15 and merge it in 35. Bring your fighter from Egypt and land it either on the carrier or in india.  Use your sub in australia and attack japan sub in the solomon islands.  You can move your australian transport towards new zeland and see if Japan will move it’s fleet towards hawaii.  Keep your fleet by india for this turn and see what Japan does with their fleet.  Remember your fleet is to weak on offense during turn 1, but it is stronger than japans fleet defensively if they attack you.  You’ll have 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 2 destroyers, and one transport.  This meaning you’ll be rolling 3 3’s, 2 4’s, and 1 1 on defense.  They will attack with (1) 4, (1) 1, and (1) 3 on offense.  They probably won’t attack and will move their fleet towards Japan, leaving borneo wide open for you on turn 2.  Since you moved your transport up from australia on turn 1, you’ll be able to use your infantry from Australia to take the islands and use your fighters for fire support.  This will allow you to keep 4 infantry from india in india and will keep india protected until you get your tanks built by in turn 2.  turn 3 you should be able to attack burma with 3 tanks and 4 infantry.  Easy victory……

Use your BB and two transports from britian and canada and amphibious assault Norway with 1 tank, 1 art, 2 infantry if Germany still has it on turn 1.  Turn 2 you build 3 tanks in india and an IC in norway.  Turn 3 you should be building 6 tanks.  3 in Norway, and 3 in india.  Britian can shuttle 3 tanks into russian front lines every turn, and pounding Japanese front lines with tanks every turn.  If you build up on mainland europe with russia, Germany will have to build to match.  If germany keeps on trying to get africa, or builds an AC in the baltic, let them.  That makes Europe that much weaker.

[thespaceman]

@jbriggs:

I say always build an IC in India turn 1.  Build 1 transport, 1 infantry, and 1 artillary to place in SZ3 at end of turn 1.  Use your carrier fighter and sink the transport in SZ59.  land it back on carrier.  Bring your destroyer from 15 and merge it in 35. Bring your fighter from Egypt and land it either on the carrier or in india.  Use your sub in australia and attack japan sub in the solomon islands.  You can move your australian transport towards new zeland and see if Japan will move it’s fleet towards hawaii.  Keep your fleet by india for this turn and see what Japan does with their fleet.  Remember your fleet is to weak on offense during turn 1, but it is stronger than japans fleet defensively if they attack you.  You’ll have 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 2 destroyers, and one transport.  This meaning you’ll be rolling 3 3’s, 2 4’s, and 1 1 on defense.  They will attack with (1) 4, (1) 1, and (1) 3 on offense.  They probably won’t attack and will move their fleet towards Japan, leaving borneo wide open for you on turn 2.  Since you moved your transport up from australia on turn 1, you’ll be able to use your infantry from Australia to take the islands and use your fighters for fire support.  This will allow you to keep 4 infantry from india in india and will keep india protected until you get your tanks built by in turn 2.  turn 3 you should be able to attack burma with 3 tanks and 4 infantry.  Easy victory……

Use your BB and two transports from britian and canada and amphibious assault Norway with 1 tank, 1 art, 2 infantry if Germany still has it on turn 1.  Turn 2 you build 3 tanks in india and an IC in norway.  Turn 3 you should be building 6 tanks.  3 in Norway, and 3 in india.  Britian can shuttle 3 tanks into russian front lines every turn, and pounding Japanese front lines with tanks every turn.  If you build up on mainland europe with russia, Germany will have to build to match.  If germany keeps on trying to get africa, or builds an AC in the baltic, let them.  That makes Europe that much weaker.

There’s a couple of problems with this strategy……

1. The destroyer in the Suez is usually up against the whole Italian navy and airforce. That’s 1 BB, 1 TRN, and up to Bomber, 2 Fighters. ???
2. The fighter from Egypt must survive against the DAK which is also unlikely.
3. This means that defending India SZ we have just 1 CV 1DE 1FIG. Japan can throw at this 1 BB 1 CV 3 FIG. This seems to me to be an easy win for the Japs.
4. India Land battle is 4 inf defending against Bomber, up to 3 FIG and 2 inf. Close but Jap should win with 1 Inf + some air remaining

Granted this has completely upset Japan’s standard opening but a first turn capture of IC India is a rare prize for Japan and sets up an early Blitz through Southern Asia into Khaz/Egy or build TRN to go for AUS/MAD

Even if the first round battle is a UK win, I don’t think that UK can hold Japan 2 with up to 7 Land units + up to 7 air units + BB bombardments.

In short I see the India IC as quite an unsound strategy. It also leaves the Atlantic sea under-defended against German air and delays any Brit landing into Europe or Africa. Brits can’t really move fleet to SZ 3/6/7 without an AC+destroyers etc. due to German 5+ fig /Bomber/ Subs etc.

Similar arguments can be made against an early build of IC Norway. Germans can attack with Massive force to recapture. Then Germany uses IC to build INF next door Russia or tanks to blitz Moscow.

Correct Strategy for UK is to build AC T1 + build up a fleet of 4 trns and drop large numbers of troops in whatever spot Germans leave weakly defended. Fleet of 1 BB 1 AC 2 FIG 4 TRN  in SZ 6 can threaten up to drop in 6 different locations.

[jbriggs]

Yes you’r right about india being taken by Japan.  But long term if Japan moves all those assets to hit India in force it will give the US a chance to strike where the japanese navy isn’t.  It also delays Japan from taking China and assaulting Russia to the North. Buying Russia at least 3 rounds before Japan starts taking land from their rear.  That is 3 extra rounds that can cripple Germany. India also has 1 AA gun for defense as well and should hit at least 1 fighter.

It is important that the carrier fighter from 35 takes out the TRN in 59 in GB1.

Yes the destroyer in 15 may be killed.  But if the germans commit units to attacking that, that means its less air units they will use in hitting russia.  Again, it only works in Russias best interest long term.

[Zhukov44]

An India IC is not quite as strategically weak when you consider the Russians can liberate it with tanks from Cauc and the Brits can build again on the following turn.  The key for the ALlies is there has to be something more than India in the mix–a USA Pacific offensive, a Russian offensive, a Sink factory etc.  India has to be part of an overall effort–otherwise it is too isolated to hold for long.

That said true enough I wouldn’t play an India IC against the best competition with 8-9 bids etc etc.  But the people who reflexively diss an India factory don’t realize how fun KJF is–it’s part of Revised strategy and makes for an exciting match.  India IC takes some skill to pull off though–for beginners I would reccomend concentrating on getting the full use out of your excellently placed London factory.

[jbriggs]

I do agree that beginners should stick to the London factory.  It does require skill pulling off the india IC.  But It just depends on how you and your allies play the game.  If each of you are gonna do your own thing, the game will certainly be over quicker than usual.  Thats the key…… Teamwork and persistance.  Control the game by limiting the enemy of options.  Do this and you’ll win no matter who you are.