Excellent First Turn Options for UK

@bcclark7:

The way the rules read is that each bomber can inflict a max of the territory value.

I haven’t read the rules in a long time, but this is not how the game is played. Like Nukchebi is saying, each strategic bombing raid can inflict the maximum value of the territory. So if you’re bombing a 6 IPC territory with 3 bombers, you’re only going to inflict a maximum of 6 IPCs of damage. The game is extremely imbalanced in favor of the allies if played in the way you describe :-).

Germany taking Egypt is not a foregone conclusion on turn 1.

A typical G1 move in the Med and Africa could be:

1. 1sub, 4fig to SZ 13 –> killing the british bb at the cost of a sub
2. 1bb, 1trn, 1fig to SZ 15 --> killing the british dd for free
3. 1inf, 1art (Lyb) + 1inf, 1art (bid to lyb) + 1inf, 1arm (Seu) +1 bom (maybe another fig if UKr wasn’t attacked) --> killing all british units in egy at the cost of 2inf

I agree that avoiding Sea Lion is a must, but I have yet to see Germany pull that off when there is a competent UK player.

I’m not talking about a G1 attempt of sealion, but on G2 if the german player sees the IC in Ind he could build some trn and maybe an AC. This will slow him aggainst russia but since you didn’t atacked the german fleet he can easaly have 4 trn by turn 3 together with the german airforce this is a considerable threat to London (you only brought 1arm on UK1 and bought nothing). So all I’m saying is: you now have to divert ressources to your capital and therefore India will be weaker.

The same can be pulled of on turn 3 since Japan is going to have it’s attacking force positioned on turn 2 so the attack on India is going to happen on J3. (see Jens numbers)

It’s time for the bunneh to bare its paws!  Or was it claws . . .

@bcclark7:

For Turn 1 as the UK player here are some ideas to preserve units and more importantly consolidate them for a powerful counter-attack. Before going further this article is meant to provide a reactionary strategy for a German bid for Africa and a potential aggressive Japan.

Main Entry:
    1ar·ti·cle Listen to the pronunciation of 1article
Pronunciation:
    \ˈär-ti-kəl
Function:
    noun
  d: a nonfictional prose composition usually forming an independent part of a publication (as a magazine)

Nonfictional, nonfictional . . . hm . . .

Purchase: 1 Industrial Complex to be placed in India. It is very important to have an ability to wage land war as the UK.

Right, land war is good idea.  But India Industrial Complex on UK1 is not the best way to accomplish this.  Juxtaposing those two sentences does not in actuality make for cause and effect.

I noticed in a later post you stated UK1 purchase is ONLY an IC, and UK2 recommended purchase is 3 fighters.  This also does not support the idea of “land war”.  You could try to make a case for UK using air to trade with minimal ground units purchased at India, but:

1.  Japan should be running 4 units per turn from Japan to French Indochina and can outrace UK in production of units, meaning that US must ALSO build an IC in Ssinkiang, and/or Russia must reinforce India to prevent Japan from taking either or both.  This is entirely at odds with your later statements in the original post that India can reinforce the Russian position against Germany.  Only in the event that the US builds in the Pacific to place additional pressure on Japan does your idea stand a chance of working, and you totally neglect to mention that.

2.  In the event that you plan to use air power at India, you are still constrained by the 3 unit per turn limit at India.  UK should either buy a bomber or a fighter on UK1 as well, and fly it towards India, increasing the localization of forces there.

3.  You promote the idea of “land war” but ignore the cost effectiveness gained when concentrating force.  In a situation in which territories can NOT be simply traded (four unit buildup per turn at French Indochina prevents simple trade for the India-French Indochina border), you want the MOST forces available at an area as possible.  A LARGE force attacking a SMALL force will take less losses as it inflicts more casualties in the initial rounds of fire.  But notice that UK London has a production capacity of 8 and India only a production capacity of 3.

Furthermore, note that the transports necessary to initiate land war from London can receive the support of US fleet in the Atlantic where the Allies are in a position to force Germany to attack (and can hence defend), while at India, UK will be stuck in a position in which both UK and Japan build forces but neither can break the deadlock until either US starts grabbing Japanese islands or Japan presses through Ssinkiang into Kazakh forcing the Allies to pull back from India to defend Caucasus/Russia.

Without even mention of the US role, your “article” is no more a proper article than a child’s scribbles and dreams of conquest are a general’s battle plan.

India is an excellent option because Egypt is too risky, and India puts pressure on Japan while being able to reenforce Russia. This strategy will result in having a very large force in India and a large fleet off the coast of India. These tactics will give you a very strong foothold in India and should give russia a sigh of relief because you can get troops to their back door very fast.

If you are building units at India, you are not sending them somewhere else.  This “sigh of relief” you speak of is VASTLY overstated.  If US and UK were stupid enough to build nothing all game and make no combat moves, then I suppose ANY plan of action no matter how defective would indeed offer a “sigh of relief”.  But the “sigh of relief” you speak of could very well come from, say, a UK/US infantry feed into Archangel following into Russia to secure Russia for all time.

Combat: Strategic Bomb Germany with your bomber from the UK.

Just a bad idea.  A bomber has 1/6 a chance of being shot down and gains 1d6 IPCs.  Contrast with a 0/6 chance of being shot down while helping to gain a 2-3 IPC territory and also lessening by 4-5 IPC (the cost of an artillery or tank) needed to claim that territory, or gaining an 8 IPC transport from Japan that must be rebuilt, or making feasible an Allied air/navy attack on German navy, etc.  The UK bomber is FAR better used for any number of purposes.

Non-Combat Movements. This will be one of the largest tactical consolidations ever during your axis and allies experience.

I myself pioneered G1 Long Range Aircraft Sea Lion in my area, but I do not flatter myself that my ideas were unique - anyone performing capable of basic analysis would have arrived at the same conclusions as I.

As for consolidation of the Indian/Australian fleets, neither are you a pioneer that is doing something that has never been done before.  So don’t embarrass yourself by making such grandiose comments.  Honestly.

Move 1 Infantry from W Canada to E Canada

Standard, and sometimes combined with early leaving of UK transport at E. Canada to pick up both infantry and tank (but not when UK dumps to Algeria on UK1), and sometimes combined with UK loading onto a US transport in unusual circumstances.  More often than not, though, the UK infantry is left stranded (acceptable).

Move 1 Infantry out of S Africa to Rhodesia (maybe)

Almost certainly NOT, given an African bid.  If UK moves out, then it risks 2 tanks 1 bomber eliminating that UK infantry, followed by a G3 claim of South Africa and tanks moving back to Anglo-Egypt.  Far better is to try to make Germany commit two tanks to take S Africa on G3, where they will be out of position to move back to Anglo-Egypt for pickup until G5, far too late to help.

Evacuate Egypt to trans Jordan, Persia, and India.(this means put your infantryman into trans Jordan, your tank in Persia, and your fighter in India)

Frankly, Germany should have smashed the crap out of Anglo-Egypt, ESPECIALLY with the African bid you mentioned.  I rate Anglo-Egypt (land) and the UK Med battleship as Germany’s only two “must do” battles, barring situations that allow G/J tank dash of course.  This makes a UK1 hold of India FAR more difficult, making Russian reinforcements necessary.

Move 1 Infantry from Persia to India

Load 2 Infantry from Australia and move transport and submarine to SZ 30

Move fleet from India to SZ 30. Leave fighter on board carrier for now. This will allow you to have a fleet large enough to ward off any Japanese naval battle in turn 1.

Oh, so it’s the old - and I do mean old - consolidate to SZ 30 west of the sea zone southwest of Australia.  Japan should TOTALLY use its Kwangtung transport to kick ass, and the Japanese Solomons sub can be used for additional fodder at Pearl Harbor.  These are both SEEMINGLY small bonuses for Japan, but in a game in which you are trying to contest Japanese control of the Pacific Rim, small bonuses will add up.  Don’t think you’ve gotten away with something clever.  UK Indian fleet consolidation has benefits, but also detriments.

Move Destroyer from Med to SZ 32. (This will be a great supporting vessel to your fleet in the Indian ocean)

Yeah, I bet that would be a great idea if it weren’t already killed by the German battleship on its way escorting the German transport to move more units into Anglo-Egypt.

Fly two fighters from Britain to Russia. (doing this bolsters Russias defense, but more importantly allows you to fly them to India on turn 2).

Transport 1 Tank from E. Canada to England

With a passive Atlantic fleet, consolidation of UK fleet at SZ 1 is probably better, allowing that otherwise passive infantry from W. Canada moving to E. Canada to be transported somewhere on UK2.

I would somehow link up the battleship you have in the Med with the one in the Atlantic. These can be used to deter Sea Lion attempts and to shatter the German fleet.

Who is the moron that ignores G1 Anglo-Egypt AND the UK Med battleship?  No, don’t tell me.  It isn’t worth my time to know.

The only reason why Germany SHOULD ignore these things is something like a failed R1 3-4 territory attack with Russia with 6 infantry left at Burytia, leaving the gates open for a G/J tank dash to Moscow.  Come to think of it, maybe that is the case.

Turn 2

Purchase: 3 Fighters to put in India. Maybe purchase 3 infantry to put in GBR, or save money.

Combat:

Strategic Bomb Germany with one bomber

I reiterate this is bad.  For reasons, see above.

Possibly attack German atlantic fleet if it looks vulnerable.

With what?  Your bomber, which might already have been shot down by German AA on UK1?  Your fleet?  Note your UK fighters are in Russia, far out of range of the German Atlantic fleet.

You will want to unload the 2 infantrymen from Australia and the 1 fighter on your carrier into India this turn. If necessary use your fighters in India and your fleet to destroy the Japanese ships in the region. If there is no enemy fleet off of the coast of India then land your troops and consolidate your navy with the lone destroyer nearby.

That’s laughable.

From SZ 30 where your fleet is supposedly at at the end of UK1, you can reach East Indies and New Guinea, and there is no reason for Japan to have put any ships there.  The SINGLE UK fighter you have in the area can reach the waters south of French-Indochina, but at the very least Japan can have a battleship there if it so chooses (there are probably better options for it anyways).

Pearl light, which you leave open without an attack on the Jap Solomon sub, is 1 sub 1 destr 4 fig 1 bomber, having 4 fighters land on carriers at Solomons, with optional Jap battleship escort additional at Solomons.  With NO Allied air in the area, this means that at end of J1, you have 1 battleship 2 transports in various sea zones and 3 transports in the sea zone east of Japan (optimal) plus Solomon fleet.

More realistic is this - MOST of which you did not bother to mention, in much the same way that a building contractor may not bother to mention that your proposed house location is sitting on top of explosive swamp gases:

After UK1, on J1, Japan builds 3 transport 1 tank, Japan transports units to Kwangtung and Burytia and Pearls with 1 sub 1 destr 4 fig 1 bomber, takes China, starts pulling infantry off the isolated islands.

With a UK2 fleet/land consolidation to India, India now has MODERATE holding forces of 7 inf 1 fighter, with the Indian fleet with 2 trns 1 sub 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 destroyer; the UK bomber should also be in range increasing the threat.  UK can capture French Indochina with its probable holding force of 0-1 inf.

J2, Japan reclaims French Indochina (if it was lost, which is PROBABLE).  Probable also in a KJF is US fleet buildup on US 1 at Pacific, forcing J2 fleet consolidation to east of Japan (for various considerations that I will not discuss here).  This means that UK can aggro a bit against French Indochina again, as J2 transports won’t drop units French Indochina.

J3 is a different matter, though, with 5-6 Japanese fighters plus bomber in range if UK fleet stays at Africa, with a Japanese fleet of 2 battleship 2 carrier 3 transport (2 other transports left east of Japan ot shuttle) moving in to claim French Indochina.

The future -

At that point (J3) US is building its Pacific fleet, Germany is reaming Africa, and Europe will be seeing the beginnning of the Ukr push (G1 infantry at Berlin move to Ukr at end of G3, but a REAL push is improbable until G4, when G2 infantry arrive (plus probable offload from Med fleet).

With Ukr claimed, Russia is forced to retreat from W. Russia to Caucasus previous to G5, allowing Germany to push its secondary front on Karelia, eliminating UK reinforcements to Archangel with the German air threat to destroy UK fleet and German ground to pose a more direct threat.  Germany starts the serious threat on Russia around G5 with the threatened permanent loss of the Caucasus to Germany that would allow Germany to build units on Russia’s doorstep and forces Russia to pull units back from its fronts.

Allies can respond either by flying reinforcements to Russia (not cost-effective), or pulling units back from India (allowing Japan use of that industrial complex).  This buys Russia more time, which the US will have to put to use by claiming Japanese islands and pressuring the coast, hopefully effectively eliminating Japan as a player and allowing the Russian infantry/Allied air defense of Moscow to stall Germany out until the Allies can reclaim Africa and start a push.  Of course, there is no guarantee the Allies will be ABLE to do this; it could be that the various Allied ways of sapping the German advance will fail and the Germans will successfully claim Russia.

Non-Combat Moves:

Move 1 Infantry from Trans-Jordan to Persia

Move 1 Tank and 1 Infantry to India from Persia

Fly Fighters from Russia to India

Transport 1 Infantry from Canada to GBR.

As previously mentioned, a lot of that ground stuff (“survivors” of Anglo-Egypt’ should just be DEAD.  Notice the additional turn required to bring the infantry from E. Canada to London in your non-com above, which could as easily have been UK infantry/tank to Algeria or Norway.

THERE, now that’s something that APPROACHES an article.

This will be the greatest enlightenment of your Axis and Allies experience . . .  :roll:

@Complexity:

@bcclark7:

The way the rules read is that each bomber can inflict a max of the territory value.

I haven’t read the rules in a long time, but this is not how the game is played. Like Nukchebi is saying, each strategic bombing raid can inflict the maximum value of the territory. So if you’re bombing a 6 IPC territory with 3 bombers, you’re only going to inflict a maximum of 6 IPCs of damage. The game is extremely imbalanced in favor of the allies if played in the way you describe :-).

In the box rules, each bomber can inflict damage up to the value of the territory.  In LHTR, the damage is limited to the value of the territory per turn.  One more reason to use LHTR!  :wink:

@Cmdr:

I sure hope you are not talking to me

No way  miss Russia, I was refering to the thread starter, who accidentaly changed the questions in the poll after I voted. Now my wote is given to Egypt, and I can assure you I have never build an IC in a contestet area or a Deadzone. I am not that retarded yet.

I wish the poll would include:

India (also known as Jewel in the Crown)
South Afrika (if you want to keep African income)
Australia (playing KJF)
Persia (the famous Persian plunge)
Egypt
Norway

@bcclark7:

I have heard you mention that a turn 3 IC in India is a better move. If you can’t hold India with an IC and troop buildup against Japan, then how could you hold it without an IC there? It seems that by turn 3 when you want to build an IC there in India, Japan will already be in control of it. I am really glad I started getting into these forums. Another question……If you build your IC in S. Africa it seems that the whole goal would be to maintain the status quo at the beginning of the game by keeping the majority of Africa in British hands. If you wish to expand your IPC income, where do you attempt to do that? It seems with this strategy you can only maintain your income, not expand it. I understand that the UK is more of a supporting player. Is it safe to say that simply holding Africa and harassing the Axis is all you can really want out of the UK?

That’s the point.  If you HAVE India on Round 3, then you can put up a complex there.  I can see a few instances where India is free at the start of England’s turn.

1)  England ran away and put 5 fighters, bomber, AA Gun and Fighter in Persia on round 1, allowing them to liberate India on UK 2.  If Japan does not take it hard, or have forces ready, he may let you keep it for a turn instead of diverting forces from his main attacks, thus India is free on UK 3 for a complex.

2)  England stacked India and Japan, seeing no complex there on Rounds 1 and 2, decided it wasn’t worth the hassell to take it out at that moment.

3)  Russia blitzes a tank from Caucasus with a fighter to support, kills the defending infantry and liberating the land allowing England to put a complex in there on round 3.

Now, the 3rd variant is the one I typically see most often.  It comes when Persia is a nightmare for Japan and so Japan goes north and central instead of south and central routes.  This, sometimes, leaves him light on units in Fr. Indo China and invites a complex in India as an option.  I should note that the R3 complex in India really needs to be set up with the American navy re-entering the Pacific on that round as well.  In fact, I think you should decide on UK 1 if you are going to attempt it since you may want to re-allocate some finances from transports/armies to navy for America if you are going to try it.

The S. African complex, on the other hand, does more then maintain the status quo.  It prevents Germany and Japan from ever really having a good chance at Africa, saves a lot of resources for both America and England, but it also allows England to plant some navy down there if they want too, or just spit a couple of tanks a round out and run them up to the middle east and into Asia as well, if you want too.

Remember, I am all about the options, I like to be flexible and unpredictable.

Francis Marion?  But in Colorado?

You are about 1500 miles too far west, and about 5000 feet too high in elevation for the Swamp Fox…

Or are you Alumni?

@Francis:

Bunnies P Wrath….

I love how you assume someone is an idiot for having different ideas than you. You assume that Japan and Germany will just automatically move units to certain areas, or build factories in certain places. You also are unable to factor in the part of the game in which you as a human measure the abilities and personalities of your opponents to aid in your decision making process. This article was to simpy offer some ideas on how to make India a more viable option to build an IC. Throwing down a large force filled with fighters into India on turn 1 is a huge deterrent to Japan, who could easily gain more income with less loss by attacking elsewhere.  Overall I would have to say your strategies are weak, and you have zero social skills. I have tried to be polite, but you really are pathetic. This forum has a great potential for us to share ideas in a polite way to further our expertise at a similar hobby. When people like you are incapable of offering constructive criticism tactfully, it really lowers the value of this forum.

Ouch.

@Francis:

Bunnies P Wrath….

I love how you assume someone is an idiot for having different ideas than you.

Yes, I bashed the original poster.  But any time I see someone try to say their non-backed up opinion is somehow an “absolute truth” - when saying it is an “article”, for example, and when I see someone purport to be OPENING MY EYES to some UNKNOWN VISTA, well - they had better deliver on their promise.  Do YOU think the original poster indeed accomplished those lofty goals?

Honestly.

Having spit fire (after a fashion), I am ready and willing to receive replies in turn - provided, for God’s sake, that they have some LOGIC and REASON to those arguments.  Which I will not say you have or have not done; I will leave you to make your own conclusions as to that.

You assume that Japan and Germany will just automatically move units to certain areas, or build factories in certain places.

Naturally.  I assume Japan and Germany will both do the RIGHT things.  One of the things I bash other people for is assuming their opponents are going to be idiots and do the WRONG thing.  I assume my opponents are going to do the RIGHT thing.

If you would be so kind as to POINT OUT THE PARTICULARS of what you think will NOT happen, I would be happy to discuss the controversial point with you, as I encourage critical thought!  But I note that you have not done this yet.

You also are unable to factor in the part of the game in which you as a human measure the abilities and personalities of your opponents to aid in your decision making process.

My standing assumption is to think that my opponents will do what is best for them.  Sometimes they will do it in ways that I did not initially anticipate, like building 2 German fighters plus infantry on G1.  But I at no time think my opponent is going to be an idiot or do something stupid just because he has done that stupid thing the last six games. Perhaps you think this a flaw in my playing style.  I think of it as a strength.

If that’s not what you were talking about, then just what WERE you talking about?

This article was to simpy offer some ideas on how to make India a more viable option to build an IC. Throwing down a large force filled with fighters into India on turn 1 is a huge deterrent to Japan, who could easily gain more income with less loss by attacking elsewhere.

As far as throwing forces into India on UK1, the question is not what immediate effect it has on the locale.  The question is what effect the moves have on the overall game.  If you indeed consider India’s 3 IPC to compare favorably to Africa’s 6 plus easily claimable IPCs, and if you think the initial UK buildup can easily outrace the J3 fighter/bomber/2 battleship bombard/transported ground unit push, to the point that UK is actually sending reinforcements from Calcutta to Russia as specified in the original post then I think I admire your boldness in such an assertion.

“C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.” eh?  Well, perhaps . . .

Overall I would have to say your strategies are weak, and you have zero social skills. I have tried to be polite, but you really are pathetic. This forum has a great potential for us to share ideas in a polite way to further our expertise at a similar hobby. When people like you are incapable of offering constructive criticism tactfully, it really lowers the value of this forum.

If you’ve ever worked for a living, you should understand and respect the value of work.  I do not say you HAVE NOT worked for a living, but let me say that calling that initial effort an “article” that would “be beyond anything in my Axis and Allies experience” is, I think an incredible insult to anyone that has ever undertaken the effort of seriously explaining the game.

For you to say that that initial effort was indeed worthy of praise makes me think that what you are looking for is not “constructive criticism” but something else entirely.  Group hugs maybe.  Now note I don’t have anything AGAINST group hugs.  But if you want a group hug, say you want a group hug.  Don’t say you want constructive criticism.

As far as your proposed effort to be polite - lad, save it for someone who cares, or someone who believes you, or both.  Frankly, I don’t buy your holier-than-thou bit; you’re right down here in the trenches with me, although you seem to have rather a large stick up your arse that could stand removing.

“Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.” eh?  lol.

But I claim no victory in this sad state of affairs.

The role of the court jester is not “to win”.

On building ICs first turn

Assuming NA Colonial Garrison

India:
1a. Gone J3, even with Colonial Garrison, it´s just that you have to take it out before they try something funny.
1b. Should taking it out not be possible (Optimal allied cooperation). Sink the fleet (building up both land forces and fleet with three production slots IS impossible) and start bleeding them dry in FIC trading back and forth.
2. Germany blitzes Africa uncontested
3. Sea Lion Invitation
4. If the allies really manage to hold it the incredible amount of troops needed will be missing elsewhere.

Egypt:
1. Lost G1
2. Traded back and forth for about 2 turns, if Indian fleet survives J1 ( It will not in this case, i would certainly love to wrap the complex up for my axis buddy in exchange for two zeros and a carrier of mine, bonus: Indian Ocean becomes Mare Nostrum)
3. G3 it´s german- peroid

Persia:
1. Never played it- it´s 1IPC- you´re serious???

Australia:
1. Far, far away
2. Without american fleet support useless
3. Very costy for Japan to take, the hawaiian fighter is enough to seal the deal first turn
4. If played carefully with a fleet unification UK1 and later with the US at the Solomons (T3 UK moves in first) there will be a respectable defensive fleet to cover US island grab.
5. Very costy to implement. I played it once and bought two fighters UK1 to fill a US carrier.
But this also means US may affort pacific buildup (more ships!) and/or sinkiang complex.

South Africa:
0. I see this most often
1. Keeps UK IPC in Africa loss bearable
2. It´s a lure. Any german forces send out to take it are out of position for anything useful the turns to come. For japan it´s costy as well because of transport capacity and less pressure on Russia, their forces are delayed 2 turns)
3. It´s cheap to refill. Two units means inf art UK1 (the cheapest way to kill a blitzing tank), maybe two tanks UK2. Anyway you´ll only spend between 6 and 10 IPCs.

@xenon:

On building ICs first turn

Assuming NA Colonial Garrison

Dangerous, dangerous assumption, me lad.  Colonial Garrison means 3 more units in India at end of UK1.  That is pretty magnificent for the Allies.  Let us not even SUPPOSE other NAs for the moment given how game-breaking they are.

India:
1a. Gone J3, even with Colonial Garrison, it´s just that you have to take it out before they try something funny.

At end of UK1 with Colonial Garrison you have 6 inf on India (Assume UK1 sees recapture of Anglo-Egypt).  That means Russia may well not have to divert forces although it probably will.  There will be 1 UK bomber in range, and a fair chance of 2 London fighters in Russia. (options - 2 London fighters plus UK bomber may have attacked Baltic fleet anticipated loss of UK fighters at least.  UK bomber and fighter may have landed in Africa after helping reclaim Anglo-Egypt, allowing Germany to attack with 1 bomber 1-2 fighter (probably 1 fighter) G2.)  Regardless, there’s a good chance UK has some hitting power.

Taking out the Jap transport at Kwangtung may or may not happen.  If it happens, UK’s fleet in the area is diminished.  If it doesn’t happen, Japan has more power initially.

Scenario A:  Japan Doesn’t Go After India Like a Rabid Hamburger Eating Weasel at Burger King

On J1 you have 2 inf in French Indochina, 3 inf in Kwangtung, 2 inf in Manchuria.  Japan will almost certainly want to nab China to eliminate the US fighter.  For various reasons that I will not now go into, I think 1-2 fighters the most you will see in action in China.  To attain local superiority of force, Japan will want to send most of its mainland infantry into China on J1.

If Japan has 2 transports on J1, you’ll see four units (one a tank) into Asia.  (The tank is dangerous because although it probably lands in Burytia or Manchuria, it can head south quickly and join China infantry.)

Regardless, on UK2, you see 9 infantry at India plus possibly more air with subsequent buildup.  On J2 you see perhaps 8 inf 1 tank 2 fighter in position to move into French Indochina (not India) assuming abandoning of China  (4 inf from China, 1 tank dropped into Asia on J1, 4 infantry dropped into Asia on J2.  This is the more generous assumption for Japan as I assume the J2 tank drop (J1 build 3 transport 1 tank) is north, and the tank heads south on J3.)  On J3 you see, then, 8 inf 1 tank 5 fighter 1 bomber in position at French Indochina to attack UK India with 12 infantry 2 fighter 1 AA gun.  This is not a great fight for Japan given that AA gun.  Not BAD perhaps, but 3 UK infantry less would certainly make a big difference, and 3 UK infantry is what UK can have in place on UK1 assuming Colonial Garrison.  Colonial Garrison is quite an NA that changes the local superiority of force mechanic in India for a long time.  (Panzerblitz is pretty sweet too, but . . .  I digress.)

This makes REASONABLE assumptions, but you can still see the nasty uphill battle Japan has.  Given the possibility of UK not retaking Anglo-Egypt (especially with fleet consolidation in the Indian Ocean) and the time and possibility of Russian infantry (not a lot, just 2 or 3) joining the defense, Japan has a tough fight on its hands, especially if the Allies do NOT bleed out India to attack French Indochina but just sit there putting 3-4 infantry there a turn (occasional Russian reinforcement)  There’s all sorts of wacky things that happen with a KJF plan with a strong US Pacific fleet and possibly a Sinkiang IC too and you have to start really worrying about that J4 (about the same time you have to worry about seriously cracking India) when the US1 Pacific fleet that went US2 at Solomons and US3 to points west.  Sure you can hold at French Indochina with infantry and send tanks in through Yakut/China.  But it’s still an interesting game.

Scenario B:  Japan makes Sweet Sweet Fighter Love to India J1:

Sometimes Japan will do stuff like put 2 infantry in French Indochina for the bid.  (There’s a school of thought that holds German Africa bids are important allowing up to 6 ground units plus air to hit Anglo-Egypt on G1, but I think a French Indochina bid viable).  With that comes the possibility of threatening a J1 take of India, possibly followed by J2 industrial complex, followed by J5-7 contest of Africa depending on Allied forces there.  With less German units headed to Africa, there’s more in Europe, and early Allied landing at Algeria can’t contest with the flexibility Japan has in landing anywhere along the African coast (although it takes a while for Japan to really be in position to drop units into Africa hence the J5-7 instead of J4 drop of J3 produced units from India to Africa - Japan just doesn’t want to bleed out Asia that early to grab Africa)

But anyways - even assuming NO Japan build, depending on the Kwangtung transport surviving, you have either 2 inf 4 fig 1 bomber or 4 inf 4 fig 1 bomber in range and with a bid 6 inf 4 fig 1 bomber in range.  Let us say that UK decided to retreat its forces consolidating fleet southwest or west-southwest of Australia.  (significant difference)  You may see the UK fighter on India, you may not, but you still have to contend with 6 inf 1 AA gun on India.  Without a hell of a lot of infantry fodder, that battle gets REAL nasty REAL fast if that UK AA gun hits even 1 fighter - God forbid it should hit 2, especially for an amphibious assault with no retreat.

And that’s making assumptions on the Allied move - it could be that instead you’ll face 7 inf 1 tank 1 AA gun (If there’s just one German tank at Anglo-Egypt in a case in which there was no German bid, you might see the Trans-Jordan infantry plus up to 1 UK fighter from Indian Ocean plus 1 UK bomber attacking Anglo-Egypt to prevent German blitz through Africa.  So the Persia infantry joins the 3 infantry at India plus the newly produced 3 infantry at the UK Colonial Garrison IC plus possible Russian tank which is admittedly bad for the Allies, but makes for interesting dice at India.

Sweet sweet fighter love is a big problem for Japan because of the risk to fighters.

–

Note - in both Scenario A and Scenario B, I do not mention the fact that after a Japanese capture of India, Japan can start producing units at India the very next turn with the industrial complex already in place.  That’s a BIG bonus for Japan.  Given all the discouraging things I described, it sounds like maybe Japan should hardly even go after India.  But that is NOT my opinion.  I think the Allied cost of defending India is very much as xenon posted.  Given a United States Pacific fleet buildup, though, the Allies still have a very playable game.

Personally, I prefer the less flashy and exciting but more reliable (IMHO) KGF.  Note I say IMHO.  That means, first, I’m a ho.  Second, I mean that it is my opinion that KGF is more reliable, but I can see entirely good and clear reasons to pursue KJF - including to a great deal personal preference.

1b. Should taking it out not be possible (Optimal allied cooperation). Sink the fleet (building up both land forces and fleet with three production slots IS impossible) and start bleeding them dry in FIC trading back and forth.
2. Germany blitzes Africa uncontested
3. Sea Lion Invitation
4. If the allies really manage to hold it the incredible amount of troops needed will be missing elsewhere.

Yep.  Agreed - mostly.  (“They come at night . . . mostly . . .”)

That is, I think that if you DO see an Indian IC, you WILL see a KJF, you WILL see a US Pacific fleet, you WILL see the UK trying to unite with the US fleet, you WILL see India-Sinkiang-fleet-air-navy shenanigans.  I’m REALLY not even remotely as much of a fan of KJF as Cmdr. Jennifer is, but you do see some exciting games for KJF.

Egypt:
1. Lost G1
2. Traded back and forth for about 2 turns, if Indian fleet survives J1 ( It will not in this case, i would certainly love to wrap the complex up for my axis buddy in exchange for two zeros and a carrier of mine, bonus: Indian Ocean becomes Mare Nostrum)
3. G3 it´s german- peroid

Ya total agree.  UK1 IC at Egypt?  ROMMEL LOLZ!

Persia:
1. Never played it- it´s 1IPC- you´re serious???

I take insanity very seriously!

But no, no . . . Persia IS the key.  Once Japan claims India, it can pump out three more units a turn, but once Japan claims Persia, it has access to Kazakh (otherwise well guarded) and Caucasus.  Those are big, big gains for Japan.

I don’t think I would go so far as to put an IC at Persia, but I can see WHY it’s considered, given its importance and its proximity to easy reinforcements from Caucasus and given that Russian recapture means UK production capability next round.

Australia:
1. Far, far away
2. Without american fleet support useless
3. Very costy for Japan to take, the hawaiian fighter is enough to seal the deal first turn
4. If played carefully with a fleet unification UK1 and later with the US at the Solomons (T3 UK moves in first) there will be a respectable defensive fleet to cover US island grab.
5. Very costy to implement. I played it once and bought two fighters UK1 to fill a US carrier.
But this also means US may affort pacific buildup (more ships!) and/or sinkiang complex.

In many ways yes.  I think you DO see that American fleet support - why put a UK IC at Australia if you weren’t counting on US defensive reinforcements?  But if you see a UK IC at Australia, you see a LOTTA pressure on India and the Japanese fleet moving to prevent UK/US fleet unification.

To be clear, I don’t think it GREAT for the Allies to pop an IC in Australia, at least any more so than any other Allied plan.  But I also don’t think it necessarily HORRIBLE either . . .

South Africa:
0. I see this most often
1. Keeps UK IPC in Africa loss bearable
2. It´s a lure. Any german forces send out to take it are out of position for anything useful the turns to come. For japan it´s costy as well because of transport capacity and less pressure on Russia, their forces are delayed 2 turns)
3. It´s cheap to refill. Two units means inf art UK1 (the cheapest way to kill a blitzing tank), maybe two tanks UK2. Anyway you´ll only spend between 6 and 10 IPCs.

OK, this is my personal opinion only.  Once again - SOMETIMES I say “you will see this and that”.  Sometimes I say “I think you will see this and that and I think this and that about it.”  When I say the first, I am pretty darn sure of myself.  When I say the second, I have some opinions, but I think the trial far from over.

My personal opinion - and you will note, I say personal opinion - is that the UK South African IC sucks if your allies are good.  It is my opinion that if the Allies work in concert that a UK South African IC is a waste of IPCs.  I cite various things to support my case, including

1. the need to maintain UK fleet elements in the Indian Ocean that is far from US reinforcement to make a case for India, the impossibility of maintaining that navy in that position (and the Japs will head in that direction on J2) meaning quick loss of Africa

2. The more immediate 2 transport build at London allowing 4 units to be ferried to Algeria or Archangel with US naval escorts; Algeria being less useful at holding Africa, but Archangel far more useful at defending Russia, a key territory.

3)  The possibility that US can build expensive tanks to blitz through Africa reclaiming it from Germany quickly means a South African IC may not be necessary

4)  The constant drain on producing South African units, and the J8+ serious threat on the African coast that forces UK to stay put at South Africa (moving out through Africa weakens the S. African position so Japan may capture it with transports stationed east of Anglo-Egypt.  It is a LONG time before Japan is really in position to do this, but once Japan has transports in position, UK can no longer afford to spread through Africa, as spread units will be wiped by Japan infantry, fighters, and tanks.  UK WILL retreat to South Africa, and although 4-5 infantry can hold South Africa quite well, that’s a 15 IPC industrial complex and 12-15 IPC of units not used elsewhere - and note that Japan can still dump to Rhodesia (Kenya for you TripleA buffs) to force either more UK defensive builds at a time at which Russia is threatened, OR UK abandonment of South Africa, which means a Japanese DEATHGRIP on Africa.  (The only thing that prevents the deathgrip is US reinforcements landing at Algeria or perhaps elsewhere in Africa, and if you had that level of commitment, I think it would have been better to go with 2 UK transports anyways!)

Now, this is NOT to say that a IC at South Africa is a BAD idea.  In fact, I think if you have no confidence in your allies (US and Russia), that an IC at South Africa is the BEST way to protect UK territories in the region.  My opinion is that Russia stands a good chance of falling in the meantime, but in some games, that is perfectly acceptable to the UK player (i.e. when there are individual winners, and the UK player doesn’t mind Germany and Japan finishing ahead as they’re on the other team, and the UK player can claim best overall performance based on territory IPC value gained in proportion to initial territory IPC value, or some such conditions).

Given a US Pacific fleet build to aid the UK IC, I think the Allies have a playable game, especially with the time advantage gained with Colonial Garrison.  I do not say, or think, it is necessarily a SUPERIOR game to a KGF, though.

A)  We are not assuming any national advantages.  If you want to discuss UK 1 IC in India with Colonial Garrison, may I recommend starting a new thread?

B)  I disagree, the South African IC is priceless.  It prevents Germany from getting Africa and stops Japan from getting Africa.  It liberates far more units, both in builds as well as starting units, by not tying up your fleets allowing you to move to Russia’s aid much faster which in turn hurts Germany even more.

If played right, there will be no Japan 8 turn, let alone a Japan 8 threat to Africa!

@Francis:

However, I am now leaning more towards Cmdr Jennifers idea to put an IC in S. Africa. My goal by putting an IC in S.Africa is to get Germany to over-commit to taking africa, and therefore putting less troops on the eastern front. By the time they are ready to take Russia there will be such a large stack of infantry there it will be nearly impossible to do it. I offer a truce bunnies…let’s try to work together and be civil to improve each others game play.

()_()
(o.O)

Hey, yeah, let’s all be friends.

I don’t think Germany should respond to a South Africa IC by bleeding out Europe to reinforce Africa.  I think that’s a REAL big mistake that Germany should just know better than to do; Germany doesn’t have enough units in Europe to bleed Europe and maintain a front against Russia.  I mean, yeah, if Germany DOES it, great, wonderful.  But you can’t MAKE Germany do it, and if Germany DOESN’T do it and G2 tank blitz through Africa and G3 blitzes back to Anglo-Egypt, well, it’s trouble.  UK can compensate, but I think it ends with UK eventually building expensive air/navy units at Anglo-Egypt or building ground that can’t go anywhere.

BTW, I missed it before in your last uber post, Bunnies, thanks for the props on the excitement on KJF, and recognizing I have some experience to draw on when I talk.

If Germany forsakes taking Africa because of the complex in S. Africa,then the complex has paid for itself.  If Germany bleeds out trying to keep a foothold on Africa then the complex pays for itself in reduced German presence.

However, the interesting thing really isn’t Germany, it’s what that complex can do to Japan. wink