Excellent First Turn Options for UK

I’m glad you thought about the S. African complex some more.

As for your Indian Complex, I think you should realize that on Japan 3 you will be facing:  15 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, 6 Fighters, Bomber and 2 Battleships.

You will have to figure out a method of defending against that and I do not think your fighter idea is going to be enough.  Also bear in mind that Germany is not just going to sit there, that means units taken from Russia without British replacement is really going to hurt you.

I’m not saying it is impossible, just that I’ve been working on the UK 1 Complex in India for the better part of a year against some of the greatest minds the internet has to offer and I have not yet found a way to make it viable.

Even round 2 is becoming a troublesome dilemma for putting a complex in India.  Round 3, however, seems to have merit depending on how the forces are laid out.  Basically, round 3 ends up giving you a good two rounds to build up before Japan begins to build against you and can force Japanese units out of Asia and off Russia’s back to come get that complex in India.

Which, summarily, is why I like starting with a complex in S. Africa. (BTW, I have built a second one in Egypt before.  Nasty move when it’s done!)

@bcclark7:

First of all the thrust for the US and UK should be to limit German IPCs.  The best way to do this is through strategic bombing.

Actually, strategic bombing is the worst way to do this. On average, your bombers will take away 3.5 IPCs (assuming you only bomb territories with 6+ IPC values). Your bomber will be shot down, on average, on its 3rd or 4th bombing run, so you will remove around 10 IPCs from Germany’s pockets before your bomber is destroyed by an AA gun. If you are buying bombers specifically for this purpose, you’re losing even more, because you are immediately down 15 IPCs for each new bomber, but won’t remove ~10 IPCs from Germany’s wallet until the 3rd or 4th turn. Money has a time value.

I only do strategic bombing in 3 cases:

1. There’s no AA gun present and no better target for my bomber.
2. It’s late in the game and, for whatever reason, I won’t need my bomber after this turn and can afford to lose it (really rare).
3. I know exactly what my opponent needs to buy the next round and stand a good chance of preventing him from buying it with a bombing raid. This usually happens when I think he’ll buy something like 2 carriers or some other large naval buy.

@bcclark7:

Germany taking Egypt is not a foregone conclusion on turn 1. Britain should have enough time to evacuate.

Basically the only time I see Germany forgo Egypt is when they’re setting up a Sea Lion attempt. If that’s the case, the UK doesn’t need to be playing around in India.

You do it in Europe, through Norway.

What you need to do to not make the game fail in that manner is make it so each raid can only inflict the max value of the territory. Instead of bombing Germany to nothing with six heavy bombers, he can kill 16 IPCs max a turn. The rulebook is not what you should be consulting in this case, as it is wrong.

@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”.