Double Allies IC in Asia (India + Sinkiang)

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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).

@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.

@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.