Australia IC

I don’t think it is a good idea.  You can only build 2 units per turn and with those 2 units you need to supply a navy to move any troops you produce there.  So that is an awful lot of money spent on an island that is very far from any of the fronts.  If you want to island hop do it as the US and save the UK’s money for the Germans Russia needs the help.

Take Borneo on UK 1.  Build an IC there if you can hold it long enough.  That’s 4 units a round.  It’s one heck of a chore to reclaim if they let you get away with the IC there and it only starts with 1 infantry for defense.

I don´t think you can hold it that long : Invasion T1, IC-Building T2 and producing T3.
Why should the Japanese player let you take and hold one of his most important islands for 3 Turns  :?

Well, you have to make him choose. :)  You can do a lot of real, significant and important damage to Japan with the allies on round 1.  And you can set up a bigger threat to Japan on Round 2.  By Japan Round 3 you could be looking at a decimated fleet 9 times over (decimation is the reducing by 10% so that would be 90%), no mainland holdings, and some of their islands already owned by the allies.

And you don’t even need to siphon troops from Russia to do it.  Just the 10 already on that front could be used to see this leaving the rest for battleing Germany.  Especially good if Germany buys her cute little aircraft carrier draining her income to the level of Russia’s on R1.

@Jennifer:

Especially good if Germany buys her cute little aircraft carrier draining her income to the level of Russia’s on R1.

hugs AC  my precious….

Squirecam

An Australian IC MAY be worthwhile, but late in the game… after Japan’s Navy is already depleted and consists of TRN’s and a guardian BB or AC.

To start, Japan fleet is 2 mvoes from Australia (read in SZ60)
US builds a FIG or MAYBE 2 and flies it to Hawaii (to join 2 INF there), but does nothign else in the Pacific (making it look like a defensive move against Japan TRNs). 
Once the US FIGs are at Pearl, next turn UK drops the IC in Australia.  Subsequent turn, UK builds an AC and a TRN with the IC, and US sends their FIGs to land on it.  Instant navy, strong on defense, and with the means to move the existing Aussie INF around and claim islands.

The trick also is, of course, that the Allies are already in a strong position when they try it… UK North Sea Fleet fully staffed, and enough INF and ART to continue landings in Europe.

@JLord:

Has anyone ever looked into this?  Is there way to make a T1 IC in Australia profitable?

I don’t really see how, but I have heard some reference on this site to a australia IC strategy.

The reason the Australian IC is used is that the Indian one is too vulnerable to Japanese ground attack, and because Australia can produce naval units closer to W. US.  So the Allies can quickly produce a navy to rival Japan’s, and start attacking the isolated Japanese islands.  It’s a turbo KJF game.

There are a lot of problems, though.  First, the Allies have to make sure Australia is not lost.  Second, the US still has to build a gigantic fleet killer that can take on 2 battleships, 2 loaded carriers, and 4 transports (Japan may very well have 5-6 transports even early game.)  Third, each time the Allies attack, they have to overcome those two free hits on Japan’s battleships, which is very problematic.  Fourth, with UK and US fighting Japan’s fleet, Germany can control Africa, possibly Brazil, and smash on Russia with those added IPCs.  Fifth, containing any navy is a difficult proposition, and the UK and US fighters may well be needed at Moscow before Tokyo is taken, which will in turn mean that Japan will have to worry less about defending its navy, which means that Japan will be freed up to produce ground troops to push in Asia again, or to produce fighters of its own to chase off the combined Allied fleet.

The advantage is that the combined Allied fleet is very powerful defensively, and forces Japan’s navy to stick close to Japan.  (If Japan tries to do anything else, Japan’s reinforcement lines are stretched too thin, and the Allies quickly gain the logistic advantage.)  The closer the Allies get to Japan, the more fighters Japan has to keep on its carriers.  The Allies can start taking the isolated Japanese islands with minimal trouble.  The Allies don’t have to worry about hit and runs by the Japanese navy, because free hits on Japanese battleships or not, a dedicated UK/US KJF supported from Australia means a really massive fleet very quickly.

Is it PROFITABLE - well, I can’t say.  I don’t think I would try an Australian IC in most games, particularly because the Japan player goes AFTER the UK player, and can thus respond to the Australian IC.  If I were feeling adventrous (sp?), I might give it a go, though.

I been thinking, if you can take Borneo and New Guinea then put an IC in India you might have a real threat to Japan.  This would require you to move an armor from Caucasus to protect India until extra infantry can be brought in.  But it’s going to put Japan in a real hotseat.

2 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 AA, 1 IC in India
2 Infantry USSR, 1 Infantry UK in Persia
2 Infantry, 1 Fighter in China
6 Infantry in Buryatia SSR (2 in Yakut, 6 in Sinkiang - American IC to be constructed)

As Japan what do you do?

@ShadowHAwk:

Why attack their fleet at all?
Just attack their islands for IPCS and then position in a way that makes them attack you.
Get 2 BB and 3 carriers and see how they fare against that.
If they move away from their mainland you can move in and blockade them.
I dont mind them having a fleet as long as they cant transfer troops with it i dont care.

Of course, you just attack the isolated islands and build a defensive fleet . . . if Japan lets you.  The problem is Japanese fighters and subs, and the German attack.

To clarify - Japan should respond to a KJF strategy with transports, infantry, and fighters.  Transports move infantry off the isolated islands quickly, infantry are cost efficient defense in Asia, and fighters are the offensive punch in Asia that can be redirected to attack the Allied navy.  Now - Japan will often put its fighters in Asia to help out in the attack on Russia.  So if you are sailing in the eastern Pacific or close to Australia, you are fine.  But once you start getting close to vital islands (Borneo, New Guinea, Phillippines (sp?), those fighters are in range, considering that Japan has carriers, plus Japan pulls back and does a heavy sub build in the waters east of Japan where its fleet unifies.

Now, you’re talking about taking the higher IPC islands that are all a good distance from Western US.  Once you push out that far, you get into range of Japanese fighters that were built in Tokyo, very possibly subs that were built at Tokyo, additional fighters from Asia, and the bulk of the Japanese fleet.  All of Japan’s power can be concentrated immediately on the Allied fleet, and Japan has lots of transports to take as fodder, as well as two free hits on its battleships.  The Allies are not in such good position, though - if they are out in the middle of the Pacific, their reinforcements will be slow to arrive.  You can have two battleships and three loaded carriers, plus a couple assorted transports, but by that time, Japan’s navy and air force can easily be two battleships, two carriers, four transports, eight fighters, and a bomber, plus very likely a couple of subs thrown in for good measure.

So Japan beats up the Allied navy, retreats, and rebuilds, to continue stalling the Allies while Germany presses on Moscow.  That is, I think, the inevitable consequence of building a defensive Allied fleet and pushing on Japan early.

Practically, it is usually a better bet to take some islands to park fighters on, build up quickly, and stay in the waters east of Japan.  If Japan flies its fighters east, then those fighters can’t be used to pressure Russia.  If Japan doesn’t fly its fighters east, the Allies quickly functionally control the waters immediately east of Japan, forcing Japan to retreat from those waters because of fear of a US sub/fighter attack.  The mentality of the Allies there is not defense, but offense (or rather, the threat of offense).  Progress is slower but more certain and far harder to stop.  (If Japan moves east, the Allies can retreat, and force Japan to extend its lines of reinforcement, while the lines of reinforcement from Western US are shortened).

@Jennifer:

I been thinking, if you can take Borneo and New Guinea then put an IC in India you might have a real threat to Japan.  This would require you to move an armor from Caucasus to protect India until extra infantry can be brought in.  But it’s going to put Japan in a real hotseat.

2 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 AA, 1 IC in India
2 Infantry USSR, 1 Infantry UK in Persia
2 Infantry, 1 Fighter in China
6 Infantry in Buryatia SSR (2 in Yakut, 6 in Sinkiang - American IC to be constructed)

As Japan what do you do?

This tells nothing of the vital positioning of the Allied navies and air forces at the start of Japan’s turn.

I feel that this question is akin to asking “You are playing rock, paper, and scissors, and you know in advance what your opponent will play.  What will you pick?”  The correct answer depends on knowledge of information that is not provided in the question; information that you are supposed to already have.

I’ll do my best to answer this question, but the usefulness of my reply is necessarily limited because of the limited information available.

1.  If the Allies positioned their fleets poorly, Japan navy kills the entire UK navy and air in the Indian Ocean, while Japanese air and ground attack China and Burytia, with extremely high probability of taking both with at least two-four infantry surviving in both.  Assuming all allied air is out of position to attack French Indochina, one infantry remains at French Indochina to force Allied attack of at least two infantry or commitment of USSR tank (either quite acceptable).  Japan builds three transports west of Japan with Japanese battleship escort to prevent probable UK bomber or US long range aircraft attack.  In future rounds, Japan builds one or two transports, a few infantry, and fighters.

There are other possibilities depending on the Allied move.

2.  Take India immediately.

3.  Do Pearl Harbor, plus three transports and battleship EAST of Japan at end of unit placement, going for immediate defense of Asia.  USSR has to pull out of Burytia on USSR 2, or commit tanks and/or fighters to counterattack Japan’s forces which will give Germany a far easier time in the west.

–

It is almost certain that Japan can do AT LEAST one of these.  The first option is attack-oriented, the second is stall-oriented, the third is defense-oriented.

You have all the information on allied fleet positions.

1 Transport (UK at Borneo)
1 Transport (UK at New Guinea)
1 Submarine (UK at Solomons)
1 Destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier (UK at Kwangtung)

2 Fighters, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Submarine at Hawaii
1 Battleship, 1 Transport at W. USA
1 Destroyer C. USA

I mean, it’s not like America has had a chance to move yet.  And the Russia fleet makes no difference and the British fleet in the North Atlantic likewise has no bearing on the situation of Japan 1.  By the time it can effect Japan the game should be on approximately round 5 or 6, at the earliest.

@newpaintbrush:

1.  If the Allies positioned their fleets poorly, Japan navy kills the entire UK navy and air in the Indian Ocean, while Japanese air and ground attack China and Burytia, with extremely high probability of taking both with at least two-four infantry surviving in both.  Assuming all allied air is out of position to attack French Indochina, one infantry remains at French Indochina to force Allied attack of at least two infantry or commitment of USSR tank (either quite acceptable).  Japan builds three transports west of Japan with Japanese battleship escort to prevent probable UK bomber or US long range aircraft attack.  In future rounds, Japan builds one or two transports, a few infantry, and fighters.

What forces do you plan to use to do this?  You have to overcome 6 Infantry in Buryatia, 2 Infantry and a Fighter in China.  You have 1 Transport, 1 Battleship in range to assist in Buryatia.  You have 7 infantry, 2 fighters on the mainland, of which only 2 of those infantry can actually reach Buryatia.

Actual Numbers:

Japan can attack with 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship and 1 Bomber vs 6 Infantry on Buryatia. 1 Infantry of the stack surviving, plus the rest of the equipment.

That leaves 5 Infantry, 2 Fighters that can reach China. 3 Infantry, 2 Fighters survive, on average.

That leaves no airpower nor any battleships to attack Pearl.  Resulting in a MASSIVE gain for the Allies be saving 2 fighters, 1 aircraft carrier and 1 submarine there. (Unless you plan to attack it with 1 destroyer only, the only other naval vessel in range not being used elsewhere needs to move to SZ 60 to retrieve a fighter, presumably???)

So what’s the situation?  You have wasted 100% of your attack resources in plundering 3 IPCs in land value you normally would have gotten anyway but you are down 5 IPCs to England, the American fleet is unscathed, the British fleet is in position to sting more islands on UK2 with forces they never expected to have around anyway, and if they loose, so what?

There are other possibilities depending on the Allied move.

2.  Take India immediately.

3.  Do Pearl Harbor, plus three transports and battleship EAST of Japan at end of unit placement, going for immediate defense of Asia.  USSR has to pull out of Burytia on USSR 2, or commit tanks and/or fighters to counterattack Japan’s forces which will give Germany a far easier time in the west.

–

It is almost certain that Japan can do AT LEAST one of these.  The first option is attack-oriented, the second is stall-oriented, the third is defense-oriented.

The last two make more sense.  It doesn’t over extend you.  But I’d actually say sink the british fleet.  As I said, if you leave those transports alone, what’s to stop England from trying for Philippines, East Indies and/or Okinawa?  Or even taking all those units and taking India and or FIC back?

Aussie complex is a crazy idea. Any B SE asian island complex is NUTZ. Against a decent player it is a sure lose tactic.

So as Japan I let Bury LIVE for 1 turn.

Big deal, it is 1 IPC, and if I still take China, I can potential out-flank the retreating Bury forces and kill them before they can get back to Moscow anyway.

So, faced with Jen’s perfect UK1 in the Pacific, I skip Bury, take China, Take India (since it is basically vacant because of sending forces to the islands), destroy the UK ships that are all isloated and undefended, and still slam Pearl with a draw-back AC placement.

The ONLY thing I might do differently is skip the J1 IC and go 3 TRN and land units so that i can re-take those islands on J2… AND take control of any IC’s that UK builds (but cannot defend) on UK2.

@Jennifer:

You have all the information on allied fleet positions.

No, I did not.

Sometimes I make a mistake and ask for information that was already provided, but not in this case.  If you review earlier posts, you will note that the Allied fleet positions were NOT NOTED.  The only thing I had to work with was

"I been thinking, if you can take Borneo and New Guinea then put an IC in India you might have a real threat to Japan.  "

which doesn’t give any but extremely vague guidelines.  Did the UK use a fighter to attack an island, or was it used to strafe the Jap sub at Solomons?  (That is entirely open to interpretation, and I have seen both variations played out.)  If the UK had used the fighter to attack an island, and the fighter survived, the UK AC would have to be positioned so the fighter could land, so could NOT be used in the attack on the Japanese transport at Kwangtung.

Please do not assume I know what you plan on doing, because I do not.

@Jennifer:

@newpaintbrush:

1.  If the Allies positioned their fleets poorly, Japan navy kills the entire UK navy and air in the Indian Ocean, while Japanese air and ground attack China and Burytia, with extremely high probability of taking both with at least two-four infantry surviving in both.  Assuming all allied air is out of position to attack French Indochina, one infantry remains at French Indochina to force Allied attack of at least two infantry or commitment of USSR tank (either quite acceptable).  Japan builds three transports west of Japan with Japanese battleship escort to prevent probable UK bomber or US long range aircraft attack.  In future rounds, Japan builds one or two transports, a few infantry, and fighters.

What forces do you plan to use to do this?  You have to overcome 6 Infantry in Buryatia, 2 Infantry and a Fighter in China.  You have 1 Transport, 1 Battleship in range to assist in Buryatia.  You have 7 infantry, 2 fighters on the mainland, of which only 2 of those infantry can actually reach Buryatia.

Actual Numbers:

Japan can attack with 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship and 1 Bomber vs 6 Infantry on Buryatia. 1 Infantry of the stack surviving, plus the rest of the equipment.

That leaves 5 Infantry, 2 Fighters that can reach China. 3 Infantry, 2 Fighters survive, on average.

That leaves no airpower nor any battleships to attack Pearl.  Resulting in a MASSIVE gain for the Allies be saving 2 fighters, 1 aircraft carrier and 1 submarine there. (Unless you plan to attack it with 1 destroyer only, the only other naval vessel in range not being used elsewhere needs to move to SZ 60 to retrieve a fighter, presumably???)

So what’s the situation?  You have wasted 100% of your attack resources in plundering 3 IPCs in land value you normally would have gotten anyway but you are down 5 IPCs to England, the American fleet is unscathed, the British fleet is in position to sting more islands on UK2 with forces they never expected to have around anyway, and if they loose, so what?

There are other possibilities depending on the Allied move.

2.  Take India immediately.

3.  Do Pearl Harbor, plus three transports and battleship EAST of Japan at end of unit placement, going for immediate defense of Asia.  USSR has to pull out of Burytia on USSR 2, or commit tanks and/or fighters to counterattack Japan’s forces which will give Germany a far easier time in the west.

–

It is almost certain that Japan can do AT LEAST one of these.  The first option is attack-oriented, the second is stall-oriented, the third is defense-oriented.

The last two make more sense.  It doesn’t over extend you.  But I’d actually say sink the british fleet.  As I said, if you leave those transports alone, what’s to stop England from trying for Philippines, East Indies and/or Okinawa?  Or even taking all those units and taking India and or FIC back?

Let me clarify.

I did mention that the first option was ATTACK oriented.  The UK and US can run around in the Pacific, but it takes them a while to build up enough to really chase off the Japanese fleet, and the game plan is that by the time that happens, Moscow falls.  It is not a matter of overextension.  The fact is, if the Allies spent 15 IPC on an IC in India, and lost eight infantry and a fighter first turn, as well as the UK Pacific fleet, the Allied forces in Asia and Africa are going to be in poor position.  To be clear, at that point Japan is not worried about DEFENDING the Japanese islands.  Japan is thinking about exploiting (ATTACKING) the overextended ground unit placement in Asia to make a quick and powerful attack on Moscow, supported by the Germans.  Given the right Allied placement (or wrong, depending on your viewpoint), Japan and Germany combined can almost CERTAINLY take Moscow in such a game.

As for the other two making sense - they ALL make sense, given the situation.  But again, if I don’t know what is going on in the game, I can hardly be expected to give solid advice, can I?

Paint:

You knew that 1 transport would be at New Guinea because it had to move there to invade.

You knew that 1 transport would be at Borneo because it had to move there to invade.

I also stated that the SZ 59 transport was attacked by an Aircraft Carrier and Destroyer, so you knew they would be there.

Also stated was that Solomons was attacked with a fighter and a submarine (fighter lands on US Carrier) so you knew where that was.

So yes, I submit you knew the placement of all naval forces already.  Since America’s is static and has no chance to move.  However, it might have taken some deductive reasoning because I did not specifically state the actual location of each ship because I expected responders to figure it out based on the information provided.

Switch:

Yea, India is undefended and you can take out China.  But what forces would you send to each attacked sea zone to clear them?  I’m not saying Japan cannot do it, but I suspect it cannot be done effectively without heavy potential losses to Japan and you’re going to be down 5 IPCs for at least 2 rounds because you just don’t have the troops available to retake those islands.

Also, what risk do you have after your battles to sustain more casualties by American counter attacks?

(These are honest questions, I want to find holes in my strategy!)

I am not going to post full blown counters here.

I would rather “shock and awe” someone trying this against me :-)

@Jennifer:

Paint:

You knew that 1 transport would be at New Guinea because it had to move there to invade.

You knew that 1 transport would be at Borneo because it had to move there to invade.

I also stated that the SZ 59 transport was attacked by an Aircraft Carrier and Destroyer, so you knew they would be there.

Also stated was that Solomons was attacked with a fighter and a submarine (fighter lands on US Carrier) so you knew where that was.

So yes, I submit you knew the placement of all naval forces already.  Since America’s is static and has no chance to move.  However, it might have taken some deductive reasoning because I did not specifically state the actual location of each ship because I expected responders to figure it out based on the information provided.

Sorry, whether you submit it or not, I had no idea.  I STILL don’t know where that UK bomber is supposed to have ended up, and that is crucial to the Japanese response.

Deductive reasoning?  You initially posted a somewhat vague picture of what the Allied navy and air force looked like; I responded with some scenarios stating that a detailed analysis was not really possible without a better picture (well, I can’t give one anyways, see below).  Your LATER post mentioned that the Hawaii fleet had two fighters and a carrier; I responded asking about the UK fighter position in relation to the first post - even though you’d posted a reply mentioning two fighters, sub, and a carrier at Pearl, there was NO WAY to tell that from your INITIAL post, or would you debate that?

If I ask a question of someone, I am going to provide all the information I can to help that person better help me.  It is POSSIBLE that I could draw up six or seven major contingency plans based on different Allied responses given the unfortunately limited information (STILL) available, but why would I go to the trouble of writing a lengthy but vague article for four hours because someone couldn’t be troubled to take fifteen minutes to post the minutae of the anticipated board position?  I just don’t see myself taking the trouble.

(edit) I really DO NOT know the board position, and I really DO NOT think that I can make any kind of informative post without more information.  I’ve wasted time like that before; I don’t like wasting time.  EVEN for hawt models.  Lol srsly?  Ya rly! (/edit)