Double Allies IC in Asia (India + Sinkiang)

It’s more easily the other way around: rolls don’t get you a victory if the strategy is not there. The best definition of luck i know is: when opportunity meets preparation. If your opponent is not prepared to take advantage of good rolls, or, if you are not prepared to deal with unexpected results then you’ll be at a severe disadvantage.

This is so beautiful definition of the charm of the game! Best I have ever read. And I think it also explains why many of us praise Hobbes as the master of the game.

On the subject: I think it is correct that UK and Russia can fight Germany on their own for a while. And if Japan screws things up and/or meets some bad luck then why not give it a try to lock it out of the sea. More succesful strategy for that IMHO could be based on different moves then the double asian ICs though:

1. Use the UK planes and the australian sub and the AC (if it survives) to kill the Japanese Indian ocean fleet. It can be done by wisely moving all or most of the initial UK air to moscow and keeping the SZ 35 fig or AC in range of SZ 34 and most of all moving the Aussie sub to the SZ 30.
2. Sink the Japanese Pacific ocean fleet with the US air force and the flleet – the best are ACs.
3. Use the original allied units to stall japan on mainland and push it out of it once the supply lines are cut for good.
4. If necessary build an UK IC on South Africa to stop Germans there.

I won 2 games using more or less this strategy for which I decided intuitively after Japan totally screwed Hawai and got some bad luck in over-ambituious moves R1. And I definitely prefer it to the double ICs strategy which i potentially – if things go bad – see as the ICs producing japanese units. And I am not willing to give the japanese equivalent of 10 inf in IPCs just for the low reason my luck went bad.

@Keredrex:

Britain can build and fight norway or use a navy to fight karelia.  (this is with the assumption that Germany didnt buy a navy R1 and losses the transport and destroyer in the north.)

With what? 15 IPCs go to the IC, meaning that the UK can only build 1 carrier, as GCar has mentioned. And afterwards 15 IPC (or lower) is what it has to build anything to use in Europe. It can trade Norway or send units to Africa but definitely not contest Karelia if Germany moved a stack there.

Russia doesnt necesarliy have to defend the sinkiang complexes, this depends on japanese moves.

The move for Japan is to buy 3 transports and afterwards 8 land units each turn and go straight for India. Any other Japanese strategy is suicide, unless the US is building up on the Pacific. And if the US is going Pacific, you can forget about any UK landings on Europe, since they won’t have the money to be dropping 3 armor in India and trying to defend against the German airforce/navy.

i had said the Double IC only work depending on japans strategy & Strength in Asian land units. we could write down a mock game and assume all its moves, strengths and weaknesses and still not completely call this a failed strategy.  over all id say this is still a possible strategy that could possibly be used for the win depending on the game.

I’ve faced this strat a few times in Revised and AA42 and it is a losing one. The only reason why this strat may work is if the Axis players never faced it and don’t know how to counter it. A bit like trying to do KAF with a Polar Express strategy (or Canadian Shield on Revised) or even a KBF (Sealion). The math simply doesn’t add: the 2 ICs can build a maximum of 5 units while Japan can build 8 or more units. How long do you think they last without any Russian help?

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

@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

Please do play. Triple A is really easy to install and most of the people discussing the topic here you can find there.

@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.

Re:  India/Sinkiang ICs.

Question:  Kwangtung transport.  If alive, 4 inf plus air to hit India on J1.  If not alive, then UK down a cruiser, fighter, or AC in the area.  No other possibilities.

If Kwangtung trannie alive, B-ship carrier plus air easily kills 1 AC 1 carrier 1 cruiser.  More conservative Japan uses 2 trannies for 6 units on India, next turn East Indies brings attack on India to 8 ground plus air.

If Kwangtung trannie not alive, you still see 6 ground plus air to India on J2, and Jap kills UK fleet in area anyways, without as much air required.

Granted, is VERY easy to defend India first few turns.  But point is not simply defense of India, must break Japan.  Subsequent turns see buildup of inf at French Indochina and China.  If Sinkiang or India attacks, Japan easy to defend.  If not attack, Japan continues inf buildup plus tanks, and funnels units to north to gain easy territory.  Almost same result for Axis.

If India is strong, Africa MUST be weak, so Germany claims.

Now second node is US goes ATL, or goes Pacific, or split.

If ATL, then Japan unstoppable, cracks one IC then other.  No other possibilities with good Jap player; Allied d at Sinkiang and India invariably cost-effective but slow infantry; Germany applies pressure from east, forces three-front defense for Moscow at Sinkiang, India, Moscow/Caucasus front.  Not good for Russia.  One will fall.

if PAC then Germany controls Africa.  It takes a long time for UK to build enough fleet solo to challenge German superiority, particularly Mediterranean.  US starts grabbing islands from Japan, but it takes a while; Japan drops infantry to Asia and ICs at French Indochina, then sub/air/fleet stalls US.  But key here is Germany is strong, and that Japan can race to hit India/Sinkiang ICs before US fleet reaches.  US logistic line is long.  Japan’s is short.

if SPLIT then US takes longer to reach key islands at Japan.  Possibly too long, giving Japan time to crack ICs.

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.

@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 :)

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:

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).