IC in India?

In your experiences what percent of the games are Axis victories?

The manchuria attack has to my knowledge been debated approximately 43,242 times (not that the indian i.c. hasn’t either). The point I was making was that if you wanted a strong I.C., you would want to attack manchuria. Stacking those troops makes them negligible if japan is going for the I.C., as japan will just skirt around them that way and they will have to retreat at some point. Using the troops directly against japan creates a very tangible result and significantly strengthens the southeast against japan.

Certainly, I do not think the fact that the manchuria attack aids an Indian I.C. can be questioned, though it does provide the very normal agressive argument to the manchuria attack in general. Lets try not to talk about that frequently followed argument and instead focus on what the manchuria attack does for the indian I.C.

If that 2nd fighter in china would aid in it being held, IF an Indian I.C. has been placed and Japan is following your idea of attacking the Indian I.C. China can certainly be taken, but can india as well? Assuming you DID attack manchuria (and won) and DID place an Indian I.C., Japan’s attack against India becomes at most 4 inf + 1ftr + 1bmb. If you decided to do that, then you’d have 2inf + 1ftr (jp) vs. 2inf + 2ftr (ru). That’s a 2% win with japan, 20% if there is 1 fighter. Of course, japan will probably realize that they cannot do both, which is the whole point. Instead they may attempt to take china. They can bring to bear 4inf + 2ftr + bmb. Most likely they will take china with 1 inf, maybe 2. With only one fighter there, it will be 2 inf, maybe 3 and they will take with 99.8% probability instead of 95%. Is that worth losing a russian fighter for? Probably not, so that aspect of the move may be questioned. I usually use it if I am going to kwangtung with britain too, which I wouldn’t do during an I.C. Of course, the truly ballsy move would be to hit manchuria with infantry and fighter only, which is only a 63% take vs 90% with the armor. But if you did win that battle, you could move the armor in noncom to china. That brings the most likely results of the china battle to japan only taking with 1 or 2 planes.That would put a large stall on japanese advancement.

All of my mumbling aside, going for manchuria and eliminating that fighter means that the india i.c. will face at most 4inf + 1ftr + 1 bmb, which reduces the chances of a take from 90% to 60% and more importantly makes the chances of it being taken with ground forces less. On top of this, even though you state that china will be taken by a good japanese player, they will not have the best chance to take it even IF they used the bomber from japan.

Only India is close enough to Russia to make it worth it. Make sure Japan has plenty of tr. to constantly send inf + armor towards Russia; that´s really more important than an ic.

wvfoos,
That works for me.
If you built a Royal Navy Fleet on UK1, UK 2 or had enough fleet left after Germany attacked on G1 to start building trans, 3 to 4 trans is good for UK depending on how much of Africa Germany took (4 to 9 IPCs lost leaving UK with 21 to 26[unless Japan has(God forbid!) taken Ind, Aus and/or NZ, though that is unlikely]).

Building US forces, moving them the next turn to E Can and shucking them on the following turn to UK, Fin/Nor or W Eur with UK/US naval protection(Alg or W Eur is the same if UK fleet has move tothe West Spain sea zone)let’s you do it with about 5 trans.

Extra trans give you an attack buffer and the option to move in two directions with protection and/or a buffer.

Is wvfoos short for West Virginia fools? :) Just axin’.

yeah, say it’s captured by the germans. the germans can only build 3 units there per turn

@Zero:

Hi,
In my ongoing game with Cystic Crypt (see Games Forum), I am having good results with a new strategy. As the allies I have built many bombers and many ICs. The ICs do not have AA guns, so when the Axis takes them, I am getting a free round of SBR without worrying about AA shots. Also if the Axis chooses to build an AA gun, then that’s 1 less ARM for the Allies to worry about.

Consider that I left Karelia defended by only 2 inf in Russia 3, and the axis refused to take it because if they had taken it I would have gotten 5+ SBR rolls without AA gun shots to worry about.

I guess the revelation for me during this game has been that ICs without AA guns combined with bombers can make capturing those ICs a real pain for your opponent. Of course this only works if you opponent can’t bomb you in return.

Cheers!

I wonder why this strategy makes me think of TM Moses VIII……

Guest, methinkest thou wasteth thine index fingers.
This thread has been inactive for over 6 months.
I think the original guest has learned his lesson and then some.

Look elsewhere on these fora for a good discussion.
In fact, try “General Discussion!”

I also like the idea of an IC in India; it allows some opposition to the Japanese where there would ussually be very little. If the USSR can take Manchuria with a minimum of casualties (say, one or two) then I would do so and build the IC. This forces Japan to make a tough decision; take back Manchuria or try for India, which is extremely difficult with the transport blocking an Amphib assult. If Japan goes after Manchuria they are forced to use their airforce to give the correct punch, weakening their opperations elsewhere.