India I.C.

@DarthMaximus:

Those are good points.

Obviously if Germany has taken out Egy and/or Syr (due to bid or whatever) then an Indian IC is out of the question.

But certainly with Russian help (ie a ftr) or if Ger had a bad run in Egy, you can probably get a away with it for a change of pace type game as CC suggests. Esp if you sub was able to retreat to the Red sea and you can have it help protect the Ind sz.

That’s a lot of if’s, especially for a bid game. If you play straight up no bid, standard rules, you’re still counting way too heavily on luck. Even if Russia puts a fighter there, Japan can still easily take the land without loss of a single fighter, you may only have 1 infantry left and leave Manchuria and Kwangtung open for invasion from America, but you’ll have stopped the British from forming a “beach-head” in Asia. With that killed (and maybe even a Russian fighter if they are fool hardy enough to risk one there) you can easily retake your empire and move into Russia as now you can build armor on the shore instead of only shuffling troops/armor from mainland Japan.

The gambit’s too risky. You are hoping Russia puts a fighter there. You are hoping Germany doesn’t cream Egypt and/or Iraq, you are hoping for good defensive rolls and maybe even a chance to bring your sub over, and you are hoping for bat offensive rolls.

Or

You could just focus on Europe/Africa and not have so many variables.

suppose you do go strong in IND - what would you expect Japan to do/what would you do as Japan?
What would the pros and cons for the US be in terms of their movement in this regard?

I would think Japan has a couple of options:

1. Ignore the IC and pound on Russia as usual, only suppling enough forces to keep any serious attack from the IC at bay. The advantage of this for the Axis is that any forces in India are not being used to protect Russia or threaten Germany so more early pressure is on Russia.

2. Work to take the IC. Regardless of how the Allies try, Japan can take the IC if it wants by J3. The advantage for the Axis here is that the $ spent by the Allies on India have not produced a lasting effect, other than some additional time granted to Russia. Also, the IC in India does enable Japan to easily send more forces to Asia, Africa, or even Caucasus.

Either approach seems to be reasonable to me, but I would probably take the IC as Japan.

The United States on US1 also has a couple options, assuming the IC remains in Allied hands at that time and that Japan has not taken all US territory in Asia.

1. The US could also build a factory, perhaps in Sinkang.
2. The Asian forces could be moved to India to help protect it.
3. The US forces could be retreated to Russia to help protect Russia from Japanese attacks.

The choices here are really dependant on what Japan did/seems to be trying to do.

If Japan is going hard for Russia, then as the US I would send the forces to Russia to aid in defense there. If Japan is going hard for the India IC, then I would send the reinforcements there if I thought the IC could hold out for a couple of turns, otherwise I would again retreat to Russia. If Japan appears to be trying to both take the IC and Russia, then I might build the IC which would have the effect of slowing Japan down further.

With Regards to the remaining naval forces in Pacific, if Japan left Pearl alone, I would consolidate the navy and go to Australia or Island hop to the India IC again depending on whether or not I thought the IC would hold out for a while. If Japan did attack Pearl and was successful, I would probably send the remaining forces to Europe.

These are just my thoughts on what I would do, certainly there are lots of possibilities out there and I’m sure I am missing some good options for both Japan and US.

I’ve liked the India IC idea ever since reading Don Rae’s essay on opening UK play, although he made a significant oversight - there are actually two Japan fighters that can enter the fray, not one.

In the event that Germany has not targetted the Suez on G1, I still like to consider the India IC play, with strategic prior positioning of Russian arm (I had not considered the Russian fighter play; that intrigues me) [aside: if Egypt is attacked on G1, I like a South Africa UK IC].

R1: Soviet Far East and Russia each move 1 arm to Nov.

UK1: transports 2 inf from Egypt/Iraq to India. Egypt arm moves to Persia. Two fighters move to Russia. IC places in India, fighter places in UK.

Japan: (going full out on the IC); 2 fighters attack transport, lands 2 infantry via its own transport; also attacks with 2 inf + fighter from Burma, fighter from Manchuria, bomber from Japan. (Pearl Harbour will be hit with only two battleships, 1 sub).

Battle:
UK: 4 infantry, 1 fighter
Japan: 4 infantry, 2 fighters, 1 bomber

Japan, we presume, wins. I haven’t analyzed the most likely casualties they would take, but suppose they keep two infantry. This may seem a big assumption, but a) only one casualty seems like very poor UK luck b) forcing a sack of Japan air power as casualties to keep more infantry may make the UK IC play worth it in itself].

Retaliation:

US1: 2 infantry can attack India; this is poor chances, but may be considered against one or two Japan inf defenders. More feasible if China fighter has survived (unlikely, if you have a good Japan player).

R2: 2 arm from Nov. attack India via Sinkiang. Now we have a better chance of success, especially if US was lucky to kill one Japan inf.

UK2: If begins in control of India - lands two fighters, moves in 1 arm, builds 3 arm - looks pretty solid (on top of surviving R2 arm), can now independently hold off Japan for a while.

or

UK2: Japan still has India - attacks with 1 arm and two fighters to delay Japan for another round. Japan will recapture on Japan2 and be building there on Japan3. BUT, it has devoted all possible time and resources to tackling India for two rounds, plus the Pearl Harbour battle has potentially not gone well and its transports will now be harassed.

I strongly try to avoid the Sinkiang IC, since this will seriously cut into funds for US shuck-shuck strategy in the Atlantic.

If the India IC is out of the question (e.g. Egypt falls to G1), India can withdraw all but one inf to begin regrouping while a South Africa IC starts up.

@Cecrowca:

b) forcing a sack of Japan air power as casualties to keep more infantry may make the UK IC play worth it in itself].

Indeed. I recently played a 3rd edition game where we put down an India I.C. Japan, much to our surprise, clobbered it the first round saccing an ungodly number of fighters, all but one that could reach I believe. While having wasted IPCs and an IC for the brits, I think the end result was fairly favorable.

In 2nd edition though, I am not so sure that forcing japan to sack air power would be worth it. I would say this simply because there is not that much air power to sac. Even if they lost two fighters they have a few more to spare, and being able to build a tank or two on the mainland will supply the offense that the fighters usually provide.

I do not think that an Indian I.C. is sustainable or generally worth the resources if playing a KGF strategy. It does provide extra time for Russia on the east. However, Russia (assuming bid) will have ample cause to worry about Germany in the first few rounds if it is trying to help out the UK, and the UK is not helping it. Even without a bid I suspect Germany would look fairly frightening to karelia, though probably not enough to take karelia solidly.

Cecrowca, have you considered the russian attack on manchuria? For your strategy I think it would be most beneficial. If you send your infantry, armor, and fighter against Manchuria you will probably win, and can then land your fighter in china. This first off eliminates the fighter in manchuria, strengthening your hold in india. Secondly, you can land your fighter in china afterwards. As you said, Japan will want to take china. Placing the russian fighter there may be quite beneficial in keeping the US fighter alive, making your attack against india much stronger. It will also force more casualties and force diverted to china if japan wants to take it, causing more casualties that would later be used against india and also distracting from force that can be brought against india.

Hi-

This is my first post, so I’ll try and make a good impression. Also, excuse me for the absence of A&A patois and appropriate acronyms.

An IC on India is not a bad idea, but coordination by the Allies is key. Russia must set up to anticipate the purchase and the US must follow through. I’ve successfully placed an IC on India as UK (playing as the other two Allies also), and I’ve demolished one as Japan (a game where I ended up having 6 IC - only one I purchased - sacked Moscow, and collected over 60 IPCs a round later on).

Assuming you’ve covered the bases elsewhere and you have any sense at all, it’s quite possible. You’d have to feel out the placement, but there’s two options. Place on UKs 1st turn, or assault as the Allies on the first round and place on UKs second turn. As always the die rolls will determine your final strategy.

I consider Japan as the one whom determines the fate of the game, so you have to be aggressive with them, and also when you face them. Placing a well-planned India IC can give the Allies the edge.

i dont like the idea to place a IC in india in Uk1, whenever im playing japan and i see the allied players do that i just hit india on J1 and that messes up the allied strategy big time, i skip pearl and go for india, there is nothin more useful than a free IC. in the following turns ill use my flees to fight the americans.

Although the R1 attack on Manuchuria will reduce the odds for a successful J1 attack on India with a UK1 IC, I’d still hesitate. I think an R1 attack on Manchuria (this could be a whole new topic in itself) significantly undermines the Russian defence against Japan in a way that Russia cannot afford. Russian units on the Pacific coast, to my mind, is always a bad idea.

Also, this detracts from the repositioning of the R arm in Soviet Far East and places it in a vulnerable position; whereas it can be recalled from Nov. if it is not required on R2 against India.

I’d question whether a 2nd fighter in China would aid it in being any more reliably held, even with a fallen Manchuria, although I suppose Japan would have sufficient distraction to ignore it at that point with Manchuria and India needing to be captured.

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.