if germany is going to take egypt, then they’ll probably do it on G1, or i do anyway. and if they do, then youre obviously not going to build one there. but if they dont, then you can have russia hold down the fort in india, and send your fighter to egypt. but if your concerned about still losing egypt, you could move the IC placement over to Syria-Iraq or to Persia
But what’s the use of producing only 1 unit per turn?
Also even with 4 inf, 1 arm, I could still use the overreaching arm of the Luftwaffe to take Egypt G2.
the point of a UK IC on continent is more for defense rather than conquest. all the UK would capture anytime early would be Libya and Algeria. then you could build one armor per turn on the mainland for russian defense/attack japs/or prep for Med invasion fleet. im trying to keep germany honest w/ S/Eur. Med invasions of europe are rare, so then can leave it virtually undefended. if you keep putting stuff for an attack from africa, so would the german player, thus diverting assets from the easter front with Russia. or you could use a Persian IC to invade via the Caucasus
The way I see a lot of games develop it’s a race between Japan trying to weaken Russia enough so Germany can take her and the UK/USA getting their act together and getting enough troops/ threat of invasion to keep the Germans honest in WEu and the east.
When I play as Japan I usually focus on Russia first and the reason behind that is because the weaker Russia is financially the better for Germany. Also, it forces Russia to divert forces to the east or else get swept in from behind. The Americans can keep the four IPC in China/Sink because the only threat they have there is the fighter to take out transports sometimes I forget to give protection. But India and the US Asian presence is secondary to putting tremendous pressure on Russia from the east.
Of course if India builds an IC, that becomes a primary target earlier on because of the ability two or three rounds down the road to launch counter attacks into the Japanese rear. Two front wars are bad.
The IC’s are good in much later rounds.
The India IC on UK1 is a valid move. Of course you must be sure you can hold it or its a waste. Done correctly it can be a real nightmare for Japan and Germany.
When I play the Allies I like to have an IC in Asia because it means rapid deployment of forces to the theatre of battle. India is a nice choice because it can be held turn 1 with minimal effort, and it has a capacity to produce 3 units.
Key points in building defending a India IC.
Cheers
Do you think the 1-2 punch of a UK Ind IC(output 3 units per turn) and a US Sin IC(output 2 units per turn) is preferrable to a lone UK Ind IC? That way they protect each other. Five(5) additional inf or arm per turn for Allies in Asia is a handful for the Axis. With 1 USSR inf shipped east each turn and UK(and possibly US) shipping ftrs to Asia each turn that’s a lot for Japan to handle.
However, this does take away from the 1-2-3 punch v Germany.
If I was playing as Japan and I saw a IPC on each turn in India on UK1 and in Sinkiang on US1 I would spare no expense to go after them both at the result of a detente on the Russian front.
Granted UK could bring over anything that survived the German assault on Africa or the infantry from Syria, but Japan can still take India on J1. This leaves USA to either launch counter to try and retake it so on UK2 they can reinforce or to simply pull back troops into Sinkiang from China in order to defend their newly minted IC.
Granted Russia could help by either moving forces over to help defend or by launching a strike on say Manchuria but in the beginning if J gets a few transpors and goes heavy INF and lands most fighters in Manch, the Russians will be hard pressed to take it and J will have adequate support to take the IPCs in both India and Sin.
Plus this means a much slower overall attack on Germany which maybe gives her another turn to build which means another 11 or so INF for the attack on Russia without having to worry about the US/UK attacks on WEu or the landing troops in Fin/Nw or Karelia.
I think the IC on India is feasible for UK player (I know people have their differences regarding this so it’s an individual thing) and if you can defend it then it’s a great deterrent to the Japanese sweep into Asia. But as for something in Sin, I think that’s more of a later round deal when Germany is being handled and the UK territories in Africa are back in their hands thus giving them the economic output to deal with Germany with minimal US support (UK and Russia) and thus allowing the US to start something against the Japanese from the mainland as well.
Just my thoughts…
@guerrilla:
@someguy577:
The India factory can always be held for the first few turns. The biggest trick is sending two russian tanks to sinkiang or persia. Between them and whatever the USA has in china you will take india back before UK’s next turn, and then they can produce in India immediately. I doubt your opponent will attack India round one after a few games with this strategy. You can also try variations with sending a russian fighter to India round one or sending the British transport to the Burma sea zone to act as a blocker instead of picking up the iraq infantry.
my own thoughts…
By Trying to fortify and counterattack the Indian zone to keep it out of the japanese hands you waste away Russia’s Offensive power… 2 tanks could mean life or death especially if Yakut is hit…if I was japan and saw an IC great Iwon’t worry about Asia I’ll smack north withall my power and the british can try there puny production to stop me… The Germans have it better because the Brits will want to stick there 3 on the IC in India the cannot assist the Americans in serious shuck (they can don’t misunderstand me but they cannot do much)…And the Russians first turn is focused on the Indian area(you might as well hit africa)…that gives the Germans less resistance… if the japanese want to they can terrorize the americans and waste the US’s money on driving them from alaska pitting the Allies farther down… Maybe the Axis isn’t this way in thinking but playing with it could win the game for them…MY VIEW:
It is not worth the allies money, Time, and Brains to waste on a factory in India
want to Add one more thing…. you can build it sucessfully on T4 but you had to have a feally crazy lapanese player (wasplaying AaA Iron Blitz Edition…)
Why don’t 4 or 6 of you pair off(Brit Ind IC v JapexBrit Ind IC) and play a game to help settle the question?
The only way an IC in Egypt will work is if (1) GER attacked Egypt from Libya and lost both the tank and infantry; and (2) GER has no transports left after G1. Thus, GER has no way to get additional troops to Africa – short of purchasing transports (which will give the UK the extra time to produce infantry).
I would only build an IC in Egypt after the USA retakes the continent. It’s not a bad idea because it lets you threaten Southern Europe, but you also have to make sure that you have enough defense on Africa because by the time Americans can get there in force keep in mind the Japanese are also probably coming to Africa en masse.
I would only build an IC in Egypt after the USA retakes the continent. It’s not a bad idea because it lets you threaten Southern Europe, but you also have to make sure that you have enough defense on Africa because by the time Americans can get there in force keep in mind the Japanese are also probably coming to Africa en masse.
i like this plan.
Please also note:
An Ind IC is difficult for the Japs to take J1. It requires JP inf and ftr from BUR, as well as airpower from other areas that might well serve in the offensive at pearl and CHI. Furthermore, with 2-4 inf and a ftr (w/ more ftrs if Russia is playing along) JP is certain to lose at least 1 inf and 1 or more ftrs. It is difficult for the JP player to land inf from PHI in IND because of the UK blocking trn. Also if the UK sub had retreated through the canal during the German attack/if EGY is not taken, then it may come and defend IND ic w/ the trn, requiring at least 2 aircraft to help if JP is to land more inf there.
IND may have more success taking IND on J2 or J3, however it has burned out a few inf in SFE and CHI.
In other words…
The IND IC may cause a Jap player to split his forces between Pearl and IND, meaning that he may not be capable of taking all the territories he normally would be able to take out.
@Grigoriy:
In other words…
The IND IC may cause a Jap player to split his forces between Pearl and IND, meaning that he may not be capable of taking all the territories he normally would be able to take out.
there is more to it than that. To actually take the IND ic would require a fair bit of luck as well. To take out the trn and sub in order to land 2 inf requires prayer that the sub does not strike a hit, as this would sink the trn (as the offensive player in this regard may not ascribe its hit to a ftr). Having landed, you are going up against 3 ftrs and 2 inf which have a reasonable chance of killing all inf that you might take IND with requiring loss of 1 ftrs, possibly 2.
And then you have IND - barely. Then what? You’ve likely left Chi alone (or barely taken it, there are usually Russian forces poised to help in the liberation as well) and there is a reasonable chance that the i.c. maybe retaken shortly after its capture.
Now look at Pearl. Divided forces may result in a less smashing victory at Pearl, with an easy retaliation (particularly with 1 less ftr defending) thus killing the Jap fleet. This makes it harder to take other coastal countries - aus included.
Mind you, as with all other plays in this game, this is an interesting gamble.
sorry but i have to disagree with an ipc in india, i seen it many times and it hardly ever works, 15 bucks is alot of money for the brits and too often i see japan take india and have an excellent spot for building infantry, plus you can only build 3 units in india a turn, so it would be hard to build up a defensive force, asia is hard for the japs to take because you have the brits in the south, the yanks in the center and the crazy ivans up north
I believe it is generally agreed in the “Best Allied Strategy” forum currently under discussion that the best way to play a UK Ind IC is with a US Sin IC. With those putting out 5 units per turn and USSR moving 1 inf east to assist it makes for quite a bit of work for the Japan player.
The IND IC may cause a Jap player to split his forces between Pearl and IND, meaning that he may not be capable of taking all the territories he normally would be able to take out.
If UK puts an IC in India, and I’m Japan, I don’t even bother with Pearl. Japan doesn’t have to do a Pearl in order to effectively prosecute the war in Asia; in fact, many players prefer to keep the Battleships nearby to assist with the inevitable amphibious assaults.
Personally, I would let the Americans have their fleet in Hawaii… if the American player decides to go heavy in the Pacific that means 1) he’s not sending troops to Europe and 2) Germany is going to keep Africa for long enough so that the British won’t be able to both supply Russia and keep India supplied.
or
