Countering Turn one India IC

[Col.Stauffenberg]

I’ve never seen a game where the axis won when they don’t do Pearl. Whoever is playing US would have to be a newb or a bonehead not to capitalize.

[Chompers2]

He bought a russian sub on turn one and placed it out off the Kaucus.  THen he attacked my battleship and transport round 2 with 2 fighters and a sub.  Normally he does then and only loses a 6 point model and I lose a fleet I cant rebuild.  Yes Russia starts off 2 infranty short in the beginning but that is not that huge a deal.

[KaLeu]

You may be interested in earlier discussions about the Russian sub strategy on this forum, for instance:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16153.0
and:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15292.15

[Hobbes]

@Chompers#2:

He bought a russian sub on turn one and placed it out off the Kaucus.  THen he attacked my battleship and transport round 2 with 2 fighters and a sub.  Normally he does then and only loses a 6 point model and I lose a fleet I cant rebuild.  Yes Russia starts off 2 infranty short in the beginning but that is not that huge a deal.

OK, I missed reading about that buy. Russia starts 2 short but he’ll also have to either use a tank on his 3rd attack or just attack 2 territories, both will also have a negative effect on the outcome.

[Malekith]

Can you explain the mechanics on this? I dont understand how this could happen in turn one?

@Chompers#2:

I played the allies today and my opponent used his transport to get five inf into India on turn one and he landed one British fighter and one Russian fighter.  He used his cruiser to auto kill the Japanese transport in range then purchased an IC in India turn one.  It is pretty much impossible for Japan to take that back next turn.  After that he was able to build tanks in India to mess with Japan and stop them from being a factor against Russia.

He seeded Africa to Germany but he also killed my battleship and transport near Africa on round 2 by purchasing a russian sub turn one and then attacking my battle ship with the Russian sub and two Russian fighters.  He is able to then use the sub as the first troop to be removed that the battleship most likely kills and the fighters finish off the battleship and transport.

How would you guys counter the Indian IC on turn one to make Japan effective in helping against Russia.  At the end of the game when I attacked Moscow my attack fell short and I was defeated.  I brought 31 tanks 10 Inf and 1 bomber but there were just too many inf and fighters in Moscow by that point.  Any advice would be appreciated.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@Malekith:

Can you explain the mechanics on this? I dont understand how this could happen in turn one?

@Chompers#2:

I played the allies today and my opponent used his transport to get five inf into India on turn one and he landed one British fighter and one Russian fighter.  He used his cruiser to auto kill the Japanese transport in range then purchased an IC in India turn one.  It is pretty much impossible for Japan to take that back next turn.  After that he was able to build tanks in India to mess with Japan and stop them from being a factor against Russia.

He seeded Africa to Germany but he also killed my battleship and transport near Africa on round 2 by purchasing a russian sub turn one and then attacking my battle ship with the Russian sub and two Russian fighters.  He is able to then use the sub as the first troop to be removed that the battleship most likely kills and the fighters finish off the battleship and transport.

How would you guys counter the Indian IC on turn one to make Japan effective in helping against Russia.  At the end of the game when I attacked Moscow my attack fell short and I was defeated.  I brought 31 tanks 10 Inf and 1 bomber but there were just too many inf and fighters in Moscow by that point.  Any advice would be appreciated.

I think he was talking about picking two guys up and adding them to the existing 3 guys in India.

[habs4life9]

Where do the Russian subs come into this? You know that Turkey’s strait being open is an OPTIONAL RULE, right? Turkey really did close off the strait in the war, so playing with it open is historically inaccurate and it also encourages a Russian naval build in the Black Sea, also extremely historically implausible. It may also be argued that playing with the strait open makes Cauc more vulnerable to German bombardment attacks, but this point is moot when you consider that the Germans also have to contend with the British and Americans in the water as well. In sum, it seems like Black Sea-to-Med accessibility only works to the allies’ advantange, so it is ultimately better to play with Turkey’s strait closed.

[Hobbes]

@habs4life9:

Where do the Russian subs come into this? You know that Turkey’s strait being open is an OPTIONAL RULE, right? Turkey really did close off the strait in the war, so playing with it open is historically inaccurate and it also encourages a Russian naval build in the Black Sea, also extremely historically implausible. It may also be argued that playing with the strait open makes Cauc more vulnerable to German bombardment attacks, but this point is moot when you consider that the Germans also have to contend with the British and Americans in the water as well. In sum, it seems like Black Sea-to-Med accessibility only works to the allies’ advantange, so it is ultimately better to play with Turkey’s strait closed.

Playing with it closed is optional, with out of the box rules it is open (and has been since the first versions of the game)
This game is a mixture of history and playability: if it was precise historically many things would be different (and the allies would get a near certain victory).

[habs4life9]

Checking my rulebook and you’re right, the open strait is default. But the historical inaccuracies are for the sake of balancing the game, aren’t they? Turkey’s strait being open is an historical inaccuracy that swings the advantage to the Allies, I find. Russia is not really supposed to be a factor in the seas.

[Hobbes]

@habs4life9:

Checking my rulebook and you’re right, the open strait is default. But the historical inaccuracies are for the sake of balancing the game, aren’t they? Turkey’s strait being open is an historical inaccuracy that swings the advantage to the Allies, I find. Russia is not really supposed to be a factor in the seas.

The German fleet on the med can be destroyed by UK2 by the brit player. It it happens before because R bought a sub it prevents G from a second landing at Egypt but Russia will have less land units and its planes will be not available to help retaking territories.

I’ll like to play it either way. For the first time Russia can have a naval impact on the game, which is nice, but on the other hand if G’s med fleet is alive things are usually more interesting. :)

[The Fuhrer]

To be honest, I would be licking my chops as an Axis player if UK placed an IC in India.

Even with this strategy, I have never seen the UK hold India past round 3.  To do so would require a huge IPC commitment, and would undermine the more important objective of securing the Atlantic and amassing a force to take Norway.  Furthermore, the placement of an IC just makes India a more appealing target for the Japs.  India will fall, and, with another Japanese IC purchase for the mainland, Japan can then place 6 tanks per turn directly into Asia, 3 of which would be right on the Caucasus’ doorstep.

I find a better strategy is to all but abandon India and reinforce Egypt.  With some help from the Russians to deter a G1 amphibious assault of Egypt, the UK can have 4 infantry, 1 tank and 2 fighters (or 3 if you want to add a Russian fighter) on Egypt on the first turn.  You can also move the UK Indian fleet into the med.  On US1 you can mount the amphibious assault on Algeria, knowing that Germany is unlikely to counterattack given the superior UK force on their other side.  While you have lost India, you have secured Africa and established an American beachhead in the European theatre all in the first round.  This all but ensures an Allied financial advantaged throughout the game and also gives the Americans a shot at Europe before Japan does.

[Concealer]

I don’t think that the purpose of placing an IC in India is to hold India. It deters Japan from walking straight into Russia an dallows the allies much more time to get into Europe. Also with India only having a value of three I don’t feel like the IPC drain is a huge commitment. Also when you couple this with a IC by the US in China you turn Asia into a back and forth contest between for those middle terrorities similar to how Russia and Germany treat Eastern Europe.

As the UK in this strategy I usually build a sizable air force to keep Germany from amassing a navy, which with help from the U.S. this is not a problem. That frees me up to put a combination of units in India and to attempt a pipeline of units into Archangel. I feel like the goal with the India IC on UK1 is to stall Japan and harass them when you can. This leaves Russia to devote a much larger force to Germany and with a little luck I have been able to to attack Japan with Russia as well.