Its not game over for the Allies, but taking India out of the picture means Egypt is going to be much easier for Germany to take for Europe’s win. Leaving India around and particularly if not threatened generally means Cairo is going to be a tough nut to crack for the Axis.
Everything else is very subjective and situational because the Pacific is so big and the US can simply spend rounds 1 and 2 in the Pacific and can cause some serious problems for a Japan that has not removed any US starting navy.
That’s a very good statement here.
I want to say, however, that you do not need to capture India to ensure a fall of Cairo.
Putting a submarine there to reduce UK-PAC income to <=3 is sufficient more often than not. As long as you make sure, that you’ll always be able to move a couple of transports in range for an India invasion, the Indian forces can’t move to Cairo. As soon as they start moving, just put the transporters to FIC or Malaya again, and UK-Pac will have to retreat to defend Calcutta.
“What can Japan do, to best aid a progress towards Axis victory?!”
Threaten their own Pacific victory. End of story. I’ve won many times with Japan, as they’re too often overlooked by Allied players. The US is the only power able to stop them. If you rely solely on India/ANZAC, even with a no-waring J4 move, the Pacific will go to Japan.
“What can Japan do, to best aid a progress towards Axis victory?!”
Threaten their own Pacific victory. End of story. I’ve won many times with Japan, as they’re too often overlooked by Allied players. The US is the only power able to stop them. If you rely solely on India/ANZAC, even with a no-waring J4 move, the Pacific will go to Japan.
I agree they are often overlooked. That is however not the case with good USA play. In our group Japan is only ‘ignored’ to aid the Germany first strategy but is NOT allowed to take Sydney/Honolulu. IF the USA allowes Japan to take one of those latter, it is ALWAYS ‘under pain of’…
If Japan takes, for example, Sydney as its 6th VC, the UK recaptures Calcutta, or the USA takes back the Philipines or moves in to liberate Sydney and kill the IJN… you name the price. ‘Germany First’ doesnt mean the USA spends nothing in the pacific and if Japan has a big enough fleet budget to really hurt the US’ expenditures for Germany, Calcutta will be retaken by the UK with ease later in the game. Japan can NOT buy enough warships to contest the USA AND expect to be able to defend it’s territories on land.
To explain my question:
If Japan just plays its own game, without a greater perspective, it will become very, very rich, but that will not give Japan a victory (and thus the Axis, for that matter).
Initiative and tempo (yes, like in chess) are still essential for Japan because after turn 6, no matter how rich Japan has become, the chance for victory has gone if all Japan did was taking India + the Money Islands + China and a chunk of Russia. If there is not also a SERIOUS threat towards Sydney/Honolulu AND Japan can defend Calcutta from the returning UK, Japan will die just rich.
Sydney can have a serious defense at turn 7ish (around 40 units@100 defense factors is not impossible if necessary). Japan cannot take this without hurting its warship builds. It can also not take Honolulu because a good USA player will always have the defensive edge there. That is priority 1 for the USA.
Anyway, that is my own experience, from play in my own group.
Its not game over for the Allies, but taking India out of the picture means Egypt is going to be much easier for Germany to take for Europe’s win. Leaving India around and particularly if not threatened generally means Cairo is going to be a tough nut to crack for the Axis.
Everything else is very subjective and situational because the Pacific is so big and the US can simply spend rounds 1 and 2 in the Pacific and can cause some serious problems for a Japan that has not removed any US starting navy.
That’s a very good statement here.
I want to say, however, that you do not need to capture India to ensure a fall of Cairo.Putting a submarine there to reduce UK-PAC income to <=3 is sufficient more often than not. As long as you make sure, that you’ll always be able to move a couple of transports in range for an India invasion, the Indian forces can’t move to Cairo. As soon as they start moving, just put the transporters to FIC or Malaya again, and UK-Pac will have to retreat to defend Calcutta.
There is truth in this statement. Containing Calcutta is more important than conquering it. There is a cost associated with allowing India to persist such as maintaining a convoy which requires shutting the economy down outside of India whilst protecting SS that can be threatened simply by UK putting a DD off S.Africa which will be difficult for Japan to block. Sydney can also sneak DD around to remove the convoy. Blocking both routes to lift the convoy costs resources Japan would much rather have threatening the VC win at either Hawaii or Sydney.
Alternatively you have to basically go “All-In” to take out India as Japan which may or may not include sacrificing a significant portion of the air force to do so. An Air force that generally creates a massive advantage in the naval battle because Japan can spend 16 IPC to place a Carrier and load it with 2 Aircraft whereas the US must spend 36 IPC to maintain the equity of naval presence. Japan will happily trade its surplus in aircraft to sink US carriers, and BB. Of course the inherent weakness of a heavy Japanese Carrier build are US bulk builds of submarines which nullifies the air superiority of Japan once Japan has to decide between losing the screening Destroyers (to hit the subs with aircraft) or aircraft to get another round to hopefully wipe out the subs before Japan’s carriers are unable to let aircraft land on them.
As it is with the common cold, it would be infinitely better to cure the common cold than treat it as treating it leeches resources better used elsewhere. The problem is curing things is easier said than done.
In the case of Japan, removing Calcutta is infinitely more valuable than simply convoying it. Convoying, however, is a good alternative if India plays well and creates an expense battle for Japan.
Couldn’t agree more, Spendo!
I must admit I have never included the Japanese submarines into the process of starving India.
Not because I didnt think of it. I saw the possibility but I needed those submarines against the USA and ANZAC as cheap losses and I thought India producing 5 IPCs per turn couldnt hurt for a while… I guess building a few subs during the first 4 turns won’t hurt since it is only equivalent to 3 mech. Hardly a miss if you already have around 40 land units in Mainland Asia
Hey guys, I don’t understand something. A few of you have mentioned Japan taking Calcutta and the UK taking it back. I don’t understand how this is possible. In our games, whenever Japan has managed to take Calcutta, that is pretty much the end of the UK presence there. From then on, it’s up to ANZAC and the USA to contain Japan.
Hey guys, I don’t understand something. A few of you have mentioned Japan taking Calcutta and the UK taking it back. I don’t understand how this is possible. In our games, whenever Japan has managed to take Calcutta, that is pretty much the end of the UK presence there. From then on, it’s up to ANZAC and the USA to contain Japan.
I agree, worse still is that Anzac and US will find it hard to defeat a Japan that has equal its income.
Hey guys, I don’t understand something. A few of you have mentioned Japan taking Calcutta and the UK taking it back. I don’t understand how this is possible. In our games, whenever Japan has managed to take Calcutta, that is pretty much the end of the UK presence there. From then on, it’s up to ANZAC and the USA to contain Japan.
It depends on whether UK decides to pull out the turn before or not.
Often times the UK will build up a large presence in Persia (or elsewhere in the middle east), to prepare for the fall of Moscow or to help prevent Moscow from falling.
Sometimes some of those troops can be sent to liberate India, depending on how the war is going in Europe.
What Chocolate and ghr2 said.
I could elaborate on this but let’s just give the example of one of the games I played:
UK marched towards India with around 60 units@120 combat factors. Not 100% sure about the number of units but the combat factors I remember… The UK pulled out before Japan could attack India (round 6) and merged that army with the incoming troops from the Middle East. Then liberated Calcutta round 9.
Chasing the retreating troops can be difficult if the RAF is in Range of west-India…
