Double Allies IC in Asia (India + Sinkiang)

[GCar]

@Zhukov44:

From what I can tell the land IC strategy is dependent on 2 attacks…

1. FIC UK1.  This is where the going gets dicey for me, because this is always a big risk, whether you are playing dice or low luck…  To get the best odds UK has to commit the cruiser, and really needs that cruiser to hit.

So…if FIC works, then Japan is hurting.  On J1, they gotta retake China and counter FIC…so there’s nothing left to go after Buryatia.

Since Japan is going to use everything it has to take these back, it also needs to drop one additional tranny load on J1.  If they don’t make this drop, or if Japan goes for Bry instead, then Japan’s situation could easily crumble when the 2nd attack happens.

The rub is that the success or failure of the entire strategy rests on being able to capture FIC…preferably with an inf and fig remaining, or at least with an inf.  A large % of the time it won’t work.

2. China R2…this is the 2nd part of the Land IC strategy.  If you take out China R2, and there are no Japanese troops in either Man or Kwa or Fic (bear in mind the troops in Fic will be hit on UK2), then in that case Axis is in big trouble.  Japan must be able to retake China on J2 or USA can build a 2nd factory, and UK and Russia can fly in fighters to protect it.

Now, if Russia liberates China on R2 with several inf remaining, then Allies can think about risking the 3 UK figs to hold it.  However, if Japan has just 2 units on the mainland, those units plus the Jap airforce should be able to take down China.  In Revised, really aggressive KJF players would sometimes divert a tank from Ukraine…and this option might become tempting in 42.  If Russia can secure China R2 with say 3 inf 1 arm remaining, and then add the 3 figs, then they should have decent odds against inf arm 5 fig bmb, or at least be able to inflict alot of damage.  Leaving this force intact be will result in either a USA2 China factory or Russia will be able to trade Jap coastal territories…this is money in Russia’s pocket and helps wear down Japan while UK/USA build up.  Of course, Axis can still win the game at this point with smart play but it could be touch and go.

It seems to me that the key to beating this as Axis is holding some mainland base that can’t be strafed from the air.  Allies, meanwhile, are looking for every opportunity to eliminate Jap ground forces with their air, and then blitz in with tanks from India.

I have won games with Axis where I was completely kicked out of Asia with Japan on turn 4. The point is that Tokyo will NEVER fall as early as Moscow will, even if Japan is kicked out of Asia.

[Hobbes]

@Zhukov44:

@Keredrex:

interesting debate guys … think what is happening here is the double IC’s in asia R1 for the allies is a strategy that does not work with the strategy suggested for the axis in the posts above.  maybe it is only a strategy that can be used against an amateur player.  Ive only ever played with the people in my group and we have only played on the original, Revised and now spring 42.  must admit i would like to play a game with a few of you based on what I read in these forums.  interesting debate guys

I don’t think the book is closed on the India IC in 42 (I don’t believe in the Sink factory, unless Japan got diced up on the mainland J1).  In Revised strategy, the naysayers dissed the India IC early and often yet people continue to play the IIC in Revised and rack up wins doing so.  We are all aware Japan is easier to neuter in 42 than it was in Revised, so why write off aggressive KJF tactics?  Sure, there are tons of IPCs in Europe but there’s also a ton of IPCs in Asia.
Bear in mind, it takes alot of practice and skill to play this strategy correctly and it is unlikely the players developing it have already perfected their game.  2nd, most of the people playing KJF are playing dice games, and in a dice KJF game, just one bad roll for Japan can totally upset the cart.  If Allies are putting up Asia ICs, then they are in position to turn bad rolls for Japan into economic advantages for the Allies.  Finally, if Allies are playing correctly, then just one fleet mistake by Japan can be fatal to Axis.  So given these factors you can probably understand why people play KJF on venues like GTO where most of the players are not experts.  In a live game, this is a faster Allies win than a KGF and more fun to play.

I’ve faced the guy GCar refereed to who built the UK1 Persia/India factories and I’m 1-1 against him.  Even with the questionable Persia factory buy, he was extremely tough to beat, and he even gave me a bid as Axis in both matches.  I give the guy kudos…he’s trying some unorthodox stuff and uncovering a new strat.  Once he realizes Axis shouldn’t be getting a bid he’ll be even tougher.

I agree that in a low luck expert game it’s likely a suboptimal strategy, but let’s face it, you can say the same thing about any strategy that isn’t a pure KGF, including a USA Pac push.  Who is to say that a USA push + India IC is a worse strategy than a USA Pac push plus UK focusing in Europe?  At least with the India IC, you have the opportunity to limit Japan’s income on the mainland.  Any time the Allies divert significant resources to Japan, Germany can counter by building tanks and pushing WR/Cau.  The question is whether the Axis player is skilled enough to hold onto Japan’s fleet and mainland bases long enough for Germany to pull out the win.

I’ve used the Indian IC but never on UK1, more like UK4-6 when going with an initial US Pac strat and discovering that the Axis player went shy with Germany against Russia, allowing the Russians to counter Japan on Asia. It can really deal a killing blow to Japan on Asia, but it really depends on how the game goes and how aggressively Germany is played. It really depends on the mistakes made by your opponent, most of which can be avoided. It’s good that players are trying it though on AA42 since some new things will definitely came out as it becomes more played by the A&A community.

I think there are more odds than it on Revised regarding a strat to contain Japan on Asia, but if Germany is well played then Russia will fall sooner than Japan with the two ICs or a US build-up on the Pacific. The UK really needs to be able to send the Russians some help against the Germans and the UK needs to build (and defend) a 4-transport fleet capable of making the Germans held back some of its power against Russia and use it to reinforce Russia and perform counterattacks against either Germany or Japan. The UK is actually the best power to attack Japan, since it can take advantages of any previous US/Russian moves before Japan can react.

And also, ICs on India/Sinkiang are essentially a burden to Russia. They create defense lines that need to be protected and allow the Japanese to focus on a single one, since they can’t support one another, leaving only the Russians to be able to quickly reinforce them during the game. And the Allies simply can’t let Japan take any of them, giving now the Axis 4 targets to focus their attention (Russia, Caucasus, India and Sinkiang) instead of simply 2. One of Russia’s greatest assets is the ability to have a reserve that can counterattack in both Europe and Asia and units send to defend any IC diminish this ability without actually giving the Russians any IPC benefit. And on Asia their ability to retreat is also crucial, forcing Japan to split its forces between the Siberian, Chinese and Indian corridors and allowing  Russians some control on the Japanese advance. To me, the India/Sinkiang ICs take those off from the Russians and they are like a Maginot Line mentality: the Axis only need to find the weak link for the whole thing to crash down. :)

There’s more to this, Bunnies’ post is also correct the possible situations and outcomes. I guess I also like to play Russia as aggressively as I can so my view might be a bit biased towards them :)

[Hobbes]

Regarding the Allies building ICs, I just had one an unique situation on a game, playing as Axis.

R1 attacks WRus and nothing else and builds 6 art. G loses the battleship while killing the destroyer on SZ15 and fails to conquer Egypt but clears it of UK units. Then the UK builds 1 IC on Egypt and moves the Indian fleet to the Med but doesn’t attack the Japanese transport on SZ59.

With Japan I made 3 attacks: India, China and SZ52, all successful and transported 4 units to French Indochina. Then the US buys an IC as well and places it on Sinkiang (I would have placed it on Brazil actually). Then the US starts building a Pac fleet since Japan builds an IC on India and goes after Egypt. It could have been quite an interesting game actually, since an IC on Brazil would be able to support the Egypt one while the US would keep growing on the Pacific.

The problem? Germany. Russia build a lot of offensive units and moved a large stack on Ukraine on R2 but Germany crushed that stack on G2, winning the territory with 6 armor remaining. From that moment on Germany completely controlled the Russian front. It’s almost impossible to keep the Germans away while having to defend an IC on Sinkiang.

[Granada]

@Hobbes:

Regarding the Allies building ICs, I just had one an unique situation on a game, playing as Axis.

R1 attacks WRus and nothing else and builds 6 art. G loses the battleship while killing the destroyer on SZ15 and fails to conquer Egypt but clears it of UK units. Then the UK builds 1 IC on Egypt and moves the Indian fleet to the Med but doesn’t attack the Japanese transport on SZ59.

With Japan I made 3 attacks: India, China and SZ52, all successful and transported 4 units to French Indochina. Then the US buys an IC as well and places it on Sinkiang (I would have placed it on Brazil actually). Then the US starts building a Pac fleet since Japan builds an IC on India and goes after Egypt. It could have been quite an interesting game actually, since an IC on Brazil would be able to support the Egypt one while the US would keep growing on the Pacific.

The problem? Germany. Russia build a lot of offensive units and moved a large stack on Ukraine on R2 but Germany crushed that stack on G2, winning the territory with 6 armor remaining. From that moment on Germany completely controlled the Russian front. It’s almost impossible to keep the Germans away while having to defend an IC on Sinkiang.

Hobbes, without questioning your brilliance I do think this game was too special to give a final verdict. Moreover this was not the India + Sink ICs strategy. And from what you say it seems evident Russia did play in a largely suboptimal way. But UK too was not played very well. What? Not sinking the second japanese trannie? Give me more of this in the games i play please…

Basically i would not write the double ICs strategy completely off, but for the UK India IC to be build the UK2 only. The reason is that I think the right time to decide whether to go agressively after Japan is right after J1. The agressive game might actually include under special circumstances given to positioning of Japaniese units the two ICs. Say Japan screwed Pearl, or what was left there appears to be an easy prey. Say India is kept by UK and FIC is weak. Say China did not go very well. Say Bur stack is intact. Why not to build sink IC, some ships off LA, a bmb with Russia, and an India IC. I would not like to face all of that if i am japanese player.

At the same time, in the games I played so far when I decided to go after Japan, Air and ships builds with US and an IC in SA with UK to contest Germans there and to support the US efforts in South Asia later in the game served me better.

The moves in my games basically created set-up where US was fighting Japan that was strugling heavy to get the same income as US which kept sinkinag and stood on 40. When it was not possible for Japs to keep the pace in the arms race in PAcific and lost the first island, she was practicaly finished as a potential threat to Russia.

Meanwhile Russia did trade UKR, BEL and KAR as usually and UK was slowly step by step building its fleet to put pressure on Germans just to remind them russia is not the only thing they have to think about. I would build an IC in SA UK3 the latest if the situation in Africa required it, but rather R2 if the Germans retook AE G2 and I saw I cannot counter.

Sinking the med fleet and getting the upper hand with UK in Africa i did see as the major Strategic priority to keep UK as the power capable of supporting Russians in their fight with Germans effectively. If you keep Russia 20+ and UK 20+ in the critical stage among R3-6 and you do not let Germany exceed 40 too much you should be ok I guess. Because when US contains Japan, and starts to divert most of the resources against Germany, no one can stand it for too long.

[newpaintbrush]

Let’s say US has contained Japan.  Japan has a pile of air and ground on Japan.

Now what?

I’d think US leaves a pack of subs to control Japan’s waters, but then I don’t know what you’d do with the rest of the fleet.  I’d guess you’d try to push west, control the Suez, then go into the Mediterranean.  But the question is how to get boots on the ground (i.e. infantry) to Moscow.  Naval builds at Atlantic to join UK fleet there?  Factories on Asian coast?  Shuttle through Alaska to Soviet Far East?  All are slow.

Granted, tank builds on the Asian coast are good. I think that’s best.  But looking for extra tricks to play.

[GCar]

Killling Japan’s fleet with the US will be good game if you have contained Germany. The problem is that when you build 2 IC and send US to the Pacific, containing Germany doesn’t happen.

[Granada]

@Bunnies:

Let’s say US has contained Japan.  Japan has a pile of air and ground on Japan.

Now what?

I’d think US leaves a pack of subs to control Japan’s waters, but then I don’t know what you’d do with the rest of the fleet.  I’d guess you’d try to push west, control the Suez, then go into the Mediterranean.  But the question is how to get boots on the ground (i.e. infantry) to Moscow.  Naval builds at Atlantic to join UK fleet there?  Factories on Asian coast?  Shuttle through Alaska to Soviet Far East?  All are slow.

Granted, tank builds on the Asian coast are good. I think that’s best.  But looking for extra tricks to play.

First of all I think US would leave a pack of 3 bmbs to strat bomb japan so that she cannot even think of starting production again.

In standard KGF you do not send more then 8 US units a round to Europe anyway and it takes four rounds to get them to Europe usually. It is definitely not slower to get them on the front from Asia then through the standard four rounds taking way EUS, EC, UK, chosen landing spot in europe.

Say you produce 4-5 in mainland Asia (2sink, 2china or 3 FIC) and you produce 4 Borneo or EI using 2 sets of 2 trannies to move them India/Persia. And you use your fleet the protect the trannies. Here you are in the worst case on R4 in cauc for borneo but much earlier with the mainland units.

I have never got that far in my games, but this is what I tought I would do and it does not look as a too much of a problem to me.

[Hobbes]

@Granada:

@Bunnies:

Let’s say US has contained Japan.  Japan has a pile of air and ground on Japan.

Now what?

I’d think US leaves a pack of subs to control Japan’s waters, but then I don’t know what you’d do with the rest of the fleet.  I’d guess you’d try to push west, control the Suez, then go into the Mediterranean.  But the question is how to get boots on the ground (i.e. infantry) to Moscow.  Naval builds at Atlantic to join UK fleet there?  Factories on Asian coast?  Shuttle through Alaska to Soviet Far East?  All are slow.

Granted, tank builds on the Asian coast are good. I think that’s best.  But looking for extra tricks to play.

First of all I think US would leave a pack of 3 bmbs to strat bomb japan so that she cannot even think of starting production again.

In standard KGF you do not send more then 8 US units a round to Europe anyway and it takes four rounds to get them to Europe usually. It is definitely not slower to get them on the front from Asia then through the standard four rounds taking way EUS, EC, UK, chosen landing spot in europe.

Say you produce 4-5 in mainland Asia (2sink, 2china or 3 FIC) and you produce 4 Borneo or EI using 2 sets of 2 trannies to move them India/Persia. And you use your fleet the protect the trannies. Here you are in the worst case on R4 in cauc for borneo but much earlier with the mainland units.

I have never got that far in my games, but this is what I tought I would do and it does not look as a too much of a problem to me.

The quickest way to get boots in the ground on Russia would be to go for armor. It may not be the most efficient way to fight Germany but if you’ve managed to contain/neuter Japan then your next objective should be to fortify Russia to prevent it from falling to the Germans. If you can do that, then it’s game over for the Axis. Armor build on Asia/India/China (Even E. Indies) can reach Russia/Caucasus in 1-2 turns.

[Hobbes]

@Granada:

@Hobbes:

Regarding the Allies building ICs, I just had one an unique situation on a game, playing as Axis.

R1 attacks WRus and nothing else and builds 6 art. G loses the battleship while killing the destroyer on SZ15 and fails to conquer Egypt but clears it of UK units. Then the UK builds 1 IC on Egypt and moves the Indian fleet to the Med but doesn’t attack the Japanese transport on SZ59.

With Japan I made 3 attacks: India, China and SZ52, all successful and transported 4 units to French Indochina. Then the US buys an IC as well and places it on Sinkiang (I would have placed it on Brazil actually). Then the US starts building a Pac fleet since Japan builds an IC on India and goes after Egypt. It could have been quite an interesting game actually, since an IC on Brazil would be able to support the Egypt one while the US would keep growing on the Pacific.

The problem? Germany. Russia build a lot of offensive units and moved a large stack on Ukraine on R2 but Germany crushed that stack on G2, winning the territory with 6 armor remaining. From that moment on Germany completely controlled the Russian front. It’s almost impossible to keep the Germans away while having to defend an IC on Sinkiang.

Hobbes, without questioning your brilliance I do think this game was too special to give a final verdict. Moreover this was not the India + Sink ICs strategy. And from what you say it seems evident Russia did play in a largely suboptimal way. But UK too was not played very well. What? Not sinking the second japanese trannie? Give me more of this in the games i play please…

Yeah, the game was really different and the Allies made several mistakes but at the same time it left me wondering what if I tried that strat playing as Allies. But just the thought of Germany rolling over Russia (which would happen if the Axis player doesn’t make mistakes) is a big argument against it.

I posted this game here more to give ideas on how additional ICs may work for the Allies. There are a few combinations that might work, depending on dice results. I once saw my Japanese attack on China completely fail (leaving the US fighter still alive and FIC/Kwantung/Manchuria without any Japanese land units). The US then built 2 ICs on both China and Sinkiang on US1, the UK bought an IC for India for UK2 and the US went Pacific. As you may imagine it was one of the best games I had, I don’t remember the end result though (I think I got kicked out of Asia but managed to keep the Japanese fleet active).

[Zhukov44]

@Granada:

Basically i would not write the double ICs strategy completely off, but for the UK India IC to be build the UK2 only. The reason is that I think the right time to decide whether to go agressively after Japan is right after J1. The agressive game might actually include under special circumstances given to positioning of Japaniese units the two ICs. Say Japan screwed Pearl, or what was left there appears to be an easy prey. Say India is kept by UK and FIC is weak. Say China did not go very well. Say Bur stack is intact. Why not to build sink IC, some ships off LA, a bmb with Russia, and an India IC. I would not like to face all of that if i am japanese player.

So in this case the decision to KJF is dependent on the J1 dice?

I agree playing like this is safer and will probably win more games for you than buying the IIC Round 1.

But I doubt I would play this way against an expert, and this goes back to a preference for either going full KJF or full KGF (for reasoning on this, see my article on KJF and the discussion from Uffish’s article on Jap navy in the Revised strat section).  USA navy alone may not get the job done in time–not against a skilled Jap navy.  Without being able to place those 3 UK units on UK2, it should be tough for Allies to kick Japan off the mainland before Moscow falls.  Once Moscow does fall, the success of the KJF typically comes down to whether Allies can hold onto FIC and India…and this depends on how quickly Japan was taken down.

But to be sure, when I was playing Revised, I definitely had more wins waiting until after J1 to decide what to do then I did going for KJF from the start with the UK1 IIC.  So from an experience perspective, I must agree with you, even if i disagree somewhat in theory.

Also, there is also the possibility that Uffish’s (very good) article on Jap tactics no longer applies with the new units, and that an air and sub heavy USA Pacific navy strat could emerge that destroys Japan’s navy earlier than Axis can afford.  If such a strat is possible, then we should probably forget about the Sink factory and have USA focus on killing Jap navy.  But in that case we are no longer talking about the twin land factory strat.

[Zhukov44]

@Bunnies:

Let’s say US has contained Japan.  Japan has a pile of air and ground on Japan.

Now what?

I’d think US leaves a pack of subs to control Japan’s waters, but then I don’t know what you’d do with the rest of the fleet.  I’d guess you’d try to push west, control the Suez, then go into the Mediterranean.  But the question is how to get boots on the ground (i.e. infantry) to Moscow.  Naval builds at Atlantic to join UK fleet there?  Factories on Asian coast?  Shuttle through Alaska to Soviet Far East?  All are slow.

Granted, tank builds on the Asian coast are good. I think that’s best.  But looking for extra tricks to play.

First priority is capturing the mainland coast, seizing any Jap mainland factories.  You also want to take the money islands asap, sacrificing transports if you have to.

At that point it depends on the variables….you can

1. develop Pacific coast factories, and shuck Alaska to Bry with your remaining transports once all the islands are taken
2. Use the old Revised strat–build in Sum/Bor/Phi/Fic and then keep the Allied fleet massed in 36.  This is especially appropriate when USA has won the fleet war but Japan has presence on the mainland.

I agree, tanks on the Pac coast are the best case scenario.  If you go with #2…the critical thing is holding Fic…if Allies hold FIC and Africa they should win the game eventually.

[GCar]

In standard KGF you do not send more then 8 US units a round to Europe anyway and it takes four rounds to get them to Europe usually. It is definitely not slower to get them on the front from Asia then through the standard four rounds taking way EUS, EC, UK, chosen landing spot in europe.

Say you produce 4-5 in mainland Asia (2sink, 2china or 3 FIC) and you produce 4 Borneo or EI using 2 sets of 2 trannies to move them India/Persia. And you use your fleet the protect the trannies. Here you are in the worst case on R4 in cauc for borneo but much earlier with the mainland units.

I have never got that far in my games, but this is what I tought I would do and it does not look as a too much of a problem to me.

It The thing is that it should take at least 6 turns for the islands (there is no way the US fleets starts going forward before turn 4. So the fastest possible (and we think Japan doesn’t even use a DD to slow you down) would be turn 6, IC on turn 7. Russia is already dead at that point. And against a good player you are for sure slow down one more turn (he’ll do something with his fleet) so that make the IC on turn 8 and the first builds on turn 9.

As for Asia, what usually happens is building on turn 2, trading on turn 3 and taking some countries if you brought LOTS of Russian help, turn 4 likely secruring Chi and Man (or like Japan can only take one back), turn 5 final attack in Asia, likely needed your newly builded tanks. Turn 6, the 5 tanks you built are going to Caucasus… oh Caucasus already as a stack of unit on it… ok I’ll move my tanks to Kazakh. And turn 7 well Moscow is already fallen.

[GCar]

And I’ll have to say that I played about a dozen of games with Axis where my opponent played the double IC strategy, they ALL went the way I said in the previous post (except I usually don’t lose the islands, I’m quite good dealing with naval fights).