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
- America moves its pacific fleet through the panama canal and makes life utter hell for the Germans.
That’s certainly what they would most likely do with it, if the American player is experienced at least.
It’s a matter of how you like to play the game as Axis. Some feel that it is necessary to strike at the American fleet and knock it out, thus saving Germany from having to deal with both British and American fleets (usually this will result in Africa possibly being taken back sooner).
My point on the “to Pearl or not to Pearl” was that IF UK puts an IC on India, I believe it becomes imperative to take that out ASAP, and especially if USA does one on US1 in Sinkiang… if you let those two get going, it becomes really tought slogging for Japan. Thus, if UK puts the IC I usually abandon Pearl and focus the Battleships on supporting Amphibious assaults and/or taking out the Transport/Sub (Sub if Germany didn’t get it on G1) and later supporting a landing on Australia.
I can always rally the fleet later around India and send it into the Med. if need be (if G owns both sides or I can always help try and take it out).
Egypt IC…
This is silly. It’s not defendable by the UK, unless Germany has already been slaughtered in Africa & the Med…but if that is the case, then why are you building it, since Africa is already mopped up?
The notion of attacking SE from Egypt is silly. Attack with what? Undefended trannies? Good luck. What are you going to do? Waste X money and Y turns to build a little fleet there first? Ha. The German airforce will slaughter you for nothing. So you’ll waste how much money building ICs, trannies, fleet defence…for a piddly lil opportunity to land a few dudes in SE? Yikes.
Indian IC…
Not a big fan as previously mentioned in numerous posts. But, it is possible and it is defendable. Quit talking about a J1 attack on India…UK isn’t going to leave just 2 Inf & Ftr there. There will be at least 3 Inf there, the Ftr, possibly the Bomber, and maybe Russkies (but they aren’t necessary). The tranny will be in IndiaSz as well, and the armour from AES in Persia.
Thus, Japan will have to use a Ftr just to clear the tranny. Then land 4 Inf, 1 Ftr & 1 Bomber against the UK defenders. This is a bad attack for Japan, and the odds are poor that you win both of these battles and take India. To top it off, you then have a cruddy attack on China and either US or Russia will take India back.
The point is: if Germany takes AES, you forget about India ICs. If Germany does not take AES, you have that option and can defend it. A J1 attack there then becomes silly, and as UK you can and will be able to stick it out there for 3-4 or more turns if you co-ord properly.
SUD
This is silly. It’s not defendable by the UK, unless Germany has already been slaughtered in Africa & the Med….but if that is the case, then why are you building it, since Africa is already mopped up?
I agree it’s not defendable until Germany has been kicked out of Africa (and Japan is held at bay in Asia), and I’m not necessarily defending it as a good choice… but let me tell you something, I’ll put the American fleet in UKSZ, get a carrier/ escort of subs/trans down to the med and start pumping INF from Egypt… in most games I play the German player stacks EEu, Germany and WEu (in that order unless the threat to Germany proper is clear and present). SEu is almost always under-defended. Taking SEu makes the German player attack on the next turn and if nothing else gives UK 6 IPC extra for a turn.
The German airforce will slaughter you for nothing. So you’ll waste how much money building ICs, trannies, fleet defence…for a piddly lil opportunity to land a few dudes in SE? Yikes.
Yes, I’m sure once I send a carrier down there the German air force will be more than willing to engage. Plus, I’m sure at this point in the game Germany has plenty of fighters to spare so they wouldn’t mind if my trannies got in a fluke hit or two and Germany suddenly had no fighter defense for Western Europe. :D
Look, putting an IC in Egypt is not (I believe) the best place to do it, given an average game. But it does give some advantages that I think are worthwhile, even if it’s slapping 2 fighters a little closer to the Eastern Front (vs. Japan). And it does open up a new area for the British to threaten. It’s different and trying different strategies is the key to finding that “new way” to open the game up.
the Egypt IC is not intended to be the main assault thrust into Germany. it is simply there to open another front on Germany and divert as many troops as possible from other fronts. the amphibious assault from the me leaves more options than one may think. with trannies from the SZ on the south side of the Suez, outside the med, one can attack the Ukraine, E/Eur, S/Eur. and if you start the assault from the other side of the Suez, you can even reach W/Eur for a 2 coast assault along with troops from the UK/SZ. German fighters cant normally reach the other side of the Suez, without having already taken AES or IEA, which would make the whole buildup impossible to begin with.
the Egypt IC is not intended to be the main assault thrust into Germany. it is simply there to open another front on Germany and divert as many troops as possible from other fronts. the amphibious assault from the me leaves more options than one may think. with trannies from the SZ on the south side of the Suez, outside the med, one can attack the Ukraine, E/Eur, S/Eur. and if you start the assault from the other side of the Suez, you can even reach W/Eur for a 2 coast assault along with troops from the UK/SZ. German fighters cant normally reach the other side of the Suez, without having already taken AES or IEA, which would make the whole buildup impossible to begin with.
I agree with M-4_Sherman, an Egypt IC is merely a diversion and simply used to provide a multiple threat to the entire German homeland (i.e. all of Europe). Only German bombers can attack ships in the Red Sea Zone (southern Suez). Also, an infantry push from Egypt into Asia, Caucasus or even Moscow is very helpful as well. In addition, French Indo-China Burma is within striking distance as well … thus, Egypt is a very strategic striking point for the Allies (if properly done and at the proper time).
The whole point is placing troops on the mainland. Whether it’s Europe, Asia or Africa … get as many troops there and as soon as possible.
I agree with your logic, MB, but:
Egypt is a very strategic striking point for the Allies (if properly done and at the proper time).
I think these forums have established that not only Egypt, but also India and Spain, can be strategic striking points, etc., etc. and you could argue that any attack could be that way. :)
I agree with your logic, MB, but:
Egypt is a very strategic striking point for the Allies (if properly done and at the proper time).
I think these forums have established that not only Egypt, but also India and Spain, can be strategic striking points, etc., etc. and you could argue that any attack could be such an attack. :)
