Playing Minor Victory - Allies have no chance

Try this.

R1 USSR only attacks WR. Move 2inf to Persia, 1 armor India, I fighter India.
R1 UK complex India
R1 USA W USA fleet or Sink Complex
R2 USSR moves 2 inf in India (perhaps 2nd armor too)

India will not fall that early if you coordinate allies help there.

Squirecam

You should build an industrial complex in India, which allows you to place 3 units per turn there.

Likewise, the USA can buy a complex for Sinkiang, or purchase a fleet off western usa.

Squirecam

I did a test game on this under very special circumstances (2 turn game limit) just to see if “always” an Axis win was true for 8 VC.

In that very specialized game, where the game was ONLY going to run 2 turns, it was indeed possible for the Allies to prevent 8 VC.

However, Squash took full advantage of the 2 turn limit and cannibalized Russia in the extreme… such that in a regular game without a turn limit, Russia would have fallen in the next 1-2 turns.

In a normal game, you are correct:  8 VC is too low.
9 VC is a MUCH better standard (discussed in another thread), and we use “10 or surrender” for Tournaments (once you get 10, going for 12 is just “playing it out”

I dont know how you played that game, but if USSR falls in 3-4 turns, you are doing something very very very wrong.

2inf 2 arm/fighter is plenty to protect India with USA help and UK India factory.

Russia is not that weak that it falls 3 turns in by itself.

Squirecam

@squirecam:

I dont know how you played that game, but if USSR falls in 3-4 turns, you are doing something very very very wrong.

As I said it was a VERY specialized game with an explicit 2 turn limit for purposes of the test (that was an error on my part, adding the game time limit changed the nature of the test).  Russia, under those conditions, was able to roll tech for jets, after sending their FIGs to India for defense.  The Jet Tech took effect at the end of Russia’s turn, meaning it was effective when Japan went for India.

You can read the thread here to understand how it happened… and why I say in a game with no time limit it is not a viable strat.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6776.0

OK. I understand now.

But to the OP, you can easily defend India in a 8 VC game. Granted, you must play KJF to do so. But it can be done.

Squirecam

Just play to 9.

Then there is no real doubt about who won, it is never a matter of the US “sneaking” into the Pacific for a quick grab of Phillipines on the same turn that UK and USA did a 1-2 amphib on Western that BARELY succeeded and cost both their entire AF, and that Russia abandoned Caucuses in order to liberate and hold Karelia.

Yeah I believe the key to an 8 VC game is to initially defend India pretty hard, sending some Russian units there. Eventually you’ll probably lose it, but by then hopefully you can get to Karelia. It still looks buggardly hard as Germany will have a free time in Africa for a while and the UK is spending its income over in India; those 2 combined mean little if any money for the UK to go into Europe.

You can definitely hold India for a few turns if you really want to though. Japan’s initial troops just aren’t enough to crack India when you have some Russian units there. If you stacked Buryatia then additionally Japan is distracted there and can’t send everything to India for fear of you invading Manchuria.

I agree absolutely with Switch, I accepted the challenge under very specific circumstances, and it was those circumstances that allowed me to go to an extreme defence of India. While I won’t concede at all that 8VCs is unwinable, I do admit it’s very unfair and that 9 is a much better compromise. You’re right though, A KJF strategy is very appropriate in an 8 VC game.

Has anyone tried playing 8VC with the India getting a complex to start the game? I don’t mean a UK turn 1 build but a sort of “bid” to play the Allies. Also what would a minimum number of turns do to an 8 VC game? Instead of Switch’s scenario with only two there has to be at least 4? Also making the other Russian VC Stalingrad (Cauc) instead of Leningrad?

I have never tried it? Any thoughts?

What you refer to is a UK NA. You could give each country a NA.

However, an 8 VC game is playable. You cannot attack with Russia though. You have to play more conservative.

If you cannot do so, you will have problems winning as allies in an 8 VC game.

Just send some russians to help India, play KJF, and you will be fine. It is not that hard of a strategy.

Squirecam

Hi Frimmel

I’m on turn 8 at the moment with the UK and I started with an IC in India and it still hasn’t fallen to Japan But Russia is completely overrun by Germany and Germany is going to take India  not Japan

We use 4 National advantaged
Fortress Europe for Germany
Tokyo Express for Japan
Colonial Garrison for UK  placed in India
NON Aggression treaty with Russia.

It played for a very different game
Japan have no troops on the mainland and the US occupy the Philippines
Even with Russia completely gone the Axis still only have 6 VC as I still occupy Kwangtung The Philippines and India.

I’m losing the game but no-one has had more than 7 VC buy the end of the US turn

Cheers
Rob

I understand that starting with a IC in India is the colonial garrison NA. I am not talking of using NAs. I mean straight out spot the UK the IC in India to start the game. No other NAs or tech. If you just want to play to play any game is playable. If you want to have an even match each side having an even chance to win…

The game is not 100% even, even with a bid.

You have a reasonable chance to win, playing straight up. Even as allies under 8VC.

However, you cannot KGF.

Squirecam

Here is an alternate thought…

In 8 VC, you HAVE to go KJF as the Allies.

Karelia is a no-go.  It is too darn expensive to hold onto being so close to German’s build limit of 16, and only 2 moves for 10 INF.  UK needs a MASSIVE dedication to even think about TRADING Karelia.  And Paris/Berlin/Rome are far from easy Allied targets.

So you go KJF…
Surrender Karelia giving the Axis a 7-5 VC edge.  Then IC and defend India.  Russia trades while it can, then holes up in Caucuses and Moscow.  THey need not worry about Japan as they have massive help coming from the UK and USA.
UK drops the IC, pulls out of Africa, fleet consolidation off India (not long at all, but they try), and try to get 2 INF from Australia to India without the TRN getting spanked.
USA builds the Sinkiang IC for FIGs, with Russia East Asia INF for defense, and the occasional ARM thrown in to drive Japan back.
Meanwhile, the US is also doing major Naval builds in teh Pacific, and brings their ATLANTIC units to the Pacific (reverse of normal KGF).

You make the grab for Phillipines by sea, and the grab for Kwang by land.  USA handles Phil, all 3 Allies team up on getting to Kwang.

With those 2, you are at 7-5 Allies, with Germany being secure in Karelia and threatening Moscow.

Then, try to flot the UK ships from India to the Red Sea, take Egypt and T-J at the same time, and the US follows up with a quick sail through the canal to land in Rome… both done in the same turn, after Germany’s move, so that the Axis is basically powerless to stop it.

8 VC Allies.

Interesting thought, although if you move all USA ships to pacific, what is there to threaten a german med fleet coming through the canal at India.

But it does point out that KJF/8VC is viable, just you have to think/play differently.

Squirecam

In the short term that works.

But the Allies cannot reinforce India, not without Russia stripping itself bare in the effort.  And doing so only means that Moscow will be one ot he 8 VC’s under Axis control instead of Calcutta.

8 VC simply is an Axis game, if played by two skilled players.