@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
1941 Factory in Australia.
-
Hello everyone, I am a fairly experienced Axis and Allies player, and I just joined this forum.
I am toying with the idea of building a British factory in Australia and fortifying in order to harass and slow down the Japanese. I imagine that Japan will take Australia if it wants to, but this would seriously slow down her expansion elsewhere and a factory in Australia would only be a minor tactical advantage for Japan.
Thoughts?
-
Can’t remember if it was 41 or 42 (i think 42) but i had some good experiences with an Australia IC one time that USA went after Japan (after Japan went all out for india), combining UK and US forces made it an interesting Pacific battle (with a.o. a UK AC filled with US figs). It was a long and mean battke and Allies still could not afford 1 mistake.
I should add that i had built it turn 2 or 3 or so, not sure if it is smart to buy it right away, especially if Japan has many transport ships closeby…
-
If Germany does not go heavy tanks, the allies might be afforded some time to make a pacific strategy work. Also, where has japan pushed her forces. If in range, australia can be a big gambit.
Usually UK can not afford to fight in the pacific AND the atlantic.
The problem with an IC in australia is that it doesn’t really return much on it’s investment. Sure, you can hold australia, but it’s hard to become offensive from there.
-
I would like to agree with special forces as well, that the allies have no margin for error in this game plan.
I will add that it IS fun to try, and can work if UK holds africa for a while to sustain a two front war. USA can build planes on a carrier in sz56 and land them in australia to support.
-
Well, it can get a pay off if it helps to obtain the money islands for UK (but that’s easier said than done usually)
-
in 1941 scenario, the IJN is very powerful and easily dominates the south pacific.
I find it highly unlikely that Japan will lose the $4 territories (onve taken) with much regularity, even if UK builds an IC in Australia.
-
I have thought much about that Australian IC too.
As UK you’ll love to have an IC in the colonies. And the only options that I can see is:
- Egypt
- India
- Australia
- South Africa
- Eastern Canada.
Ordered after my prefered location.
- Egypt is very well placed to hold Africa and send ships into the Med and Indian Ocean. Downside is that it will most likely fall very quickly and send a well placed IC in enemy hands.
- India is also strategically well placed. But it too will fall too easily, if Japan sets out to get it. And that’s a no-goer too.
- The australian IC is placed in the perimeter of the board but may be worth the money. I don’t doubt that Japan can get it, if they really want to. But he will have to commit a lot of his forces better spent elsewhere. And for what? It’s not an IC Japan will find very usefull. It will only be to prevent the UK player from threatening the big money islands.
So this IC can slow down the japanese expansion. But I think it will be neccesary to have the assistance of USA i the pacific too, for this plan to be worth trying.
The good old question is then: Can UK afford to spend money in two places on the board? - South Africa? Not a favourite of mine. But I have tried it now and then to contest Africa. But it doesn’t seem to really pay off. All those tanks in south Africa takes forever to get to the other fronts.
- An IC in Canada is probably never worth the investment. Maybe if Germany has a heavy airsuperiority in the Atlantic? But why not just save the money one turn and then dump a bigger fleet next turn?
-
In fact, a UK industrial complex is, whats missing in this setup.
Japan is not fun to play, if there is noone to fight against, because everyone is focusing on Germany & Italy. In fact, India itself is paying 1 Infantry a turn, therefore only minor investments are necessary to get a good gaming experience for every one.
Not to mention that it seems necessary for balancing.
-
I think you can do it, but the problem is, if you can justify building the Aus IC then you probably don’t need it.
In recent months I’ve seen more and more US all Pacific (or 90% Pac) strats and with strong US play in the Pacific you don’t really need the Aus IC. It would help, but the US can protect Aus and take EI. Bor is a little harder, but once those islands are taken there really isn’t much need for UK support. It’d be nice to have a little more UK support but its not necessary and certainly not at the expense of letting Russia get crushed by Germany.
I’d consider it under a few circumstances but never in rd 1. I’d wait until UK can get at least one of its NOs. And in this case probably the Pac NO. With the initial UK trn and Aus troops, if you time your taking of Car Is correctly then the US can reinforce with Naval protection. At this point if you are guaranteed to be able to count on that NO for 2-3 turns. You might be able to afford the investment. This would replace the potential IC in Norway. UK can usually afford an IC in rd 3 or so. Most cases it probably gets put in Nor, but with a strong Pacific game you can substitute it in for Aus instead.
But again if it looks that good to potentially place in Aus, you might be able to do an Indian IC instead, which is probably better. And finally if the US was able to take EI, you might be able to place it there. It really depends on how patient you are and what the overall board looks like as well as your overall strategy.
Suggested Topics
