IC in india?

I’m not sure here, it all depends on how much help the Russians can afford to give India. If they can march enough infantry down to India, it will hold. And that in turn depends upon the Barbarossa campaign, how hard pressed the Russians will be by the Germans. So, here we clearly need the game to play these scenarios out…

We are talking without knowing the real deploy. I’m totally sure China’s deploy cannot be the one in the picture. It would be the very first country in a A&A game that could get all her units totally and utterly destroyed before even playing her very first turn. Even minors in AAPacific got better deploy.

I’m not sure here, it all depends on how much help the Russians can afford to give India. If they can march enough infantry down to India, it will hold. And that in turn depends upon the Barbarossa campaign, how hard pressed the Russians will be by the Germans. So, here we clearly need the game to play these scenarios out…

The Russian start with no planes and like 1 tank and they have 6 infantry in range, but i think they need to cover Caucasus as well.  I don’t think the Russians would build anything but tanks on R1 because they got 39 infantry and one tank and like 2 artillery…so that does not make for buying planes, but more tanks and artillery…and if they bought a plane i don’t think their first option was to help out uk with their only offensive tool because they need to keep Germans out from getting a crack at Moscow.

If japan take india, perhaps Soviets can retake but the Japanese will retake it back if they keep some transports built on j1

/IL

This is the sequence I think will happen in many games:

R1: Soviet move of 4? inf into Persia.
J1: takes Burma, sinks India fleet and sets up for seaborne invasion of India.
UK1: builds IC in India.
R2: Soviet move those 4? inf to India.
J2: Japan attacks?
UK2: if still controlled, UK build in India IC.

So you see that calculating how many Russian inf will be needed is crucial for Allied success. Given that all Russian offensive units will probably be needed vs. the Germans, I don’t think retaking India after it being lost is a great idea. Just stop it from being lost in the first place, otherwise, don’t build an IC (or build it in South Africa…).

If they move 4 infantry away from Caucasus how do they cover the hole from Germany taking at least 3 territories on G1  ( Baltic, East Poland, Ukraine- killing 7 infantry) and still protect the factory at Caucasus?  They got about 11 other infantry to cover Karellia, Belorussia, E. Ukraine and Caucasus, plus builds, but that would weaken Karellia and Caucasus and they cant afford to lose either. Karellia will fall on G2 w/o a fight to help UK interests.  I don’t think Soviets can send more than 1-2 infantry to help and that’s not enough if Japan bring in 4 infantry and 4 planes+Shore shots.

If japan can bring in 3 transports in range of India from landings nearby, the 4 infantry would not help.

Japan can invade East Indies, Borneo, and bring the third transport to #36 on J1 (1 tank, 1 art, 4 men) plus BB SB and CA SB

i think that india ipc is just another reason for japan to defend russia but i agree gb cant hold against japan if that happens

/IL

Move of 4 inf:

Caucasus can be defended by 10 Inf on turn 2 (2 of those present, 1 from East Ukraine, 3 from Russia and 4 built).

India defended by: 7 inf, 1 art, 1 AA= 16

India attacked by: 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 5 ftr (one assumed lost to AA), BB+CA shbr= 21+ 7 shbr first round.

Probable result: taken by 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tank.

Move of 6 inf:

Caucasus can be defended by 8 inf on turn 2 (1 from East Ukraine, 3 from Russia and 4 built).

India defended by: 9 inf, 1 art, 1 AA= 20

India attacked by: 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 5 ftr (one assumed lost to AA), BB+CA shbr= 21+ 7 shbr first round.

Probable result: Not taken.

What do we say about these options? Obviously, you wouldn’t be able to defend Karelia SSR but I think this is hard anyways. If you move the maximum amount of infantry (6), you would be able to hold India and get it to start building tanks but you would probably demand quite strong attacks by UK vs. Germany very quickly as the Soviet player. 8 inf in Caucasus isn’t very comforting though considering combined German/Italian attacks, maybe 10 inf is a minimum? On the other hand, IL, your strategy is even more anti-Indian than my suggestion on my thread, since for example you can’t take Phillippines with the BB and CA and invade India on turn 2, so I doubt if many Japanese players will focus so totally on India. Interesting to see this played out!

Yes its POSSIBLE to send that stuff to India, but what will the Soviets do to keep Germany from taking all the territories other than Moscow real quick? Your idea does not help Karellia which is losing support and giving Germany a factory. I think it was added in AA50 to give the Russians something valuable to defend so its historically realistic because revised often abandons what would be Leningrad and give it to Germany because the Soviets have nothing of value to defend, but to present a factory to Germany gives them the infantry build point so it will take less time to crush Moscow.

I think like the other 2 global games, its even less possible for the Soviets to send all kinds of stuff to help her allies.

Once Karellia falls the focus moves to Archangel to Moscow and the Germans have made a northern hook and invalidated the southern defenses which are now pulled out to defend Moscow.

So again i think the 39 infantry set up are just enough to hold out so they can build tanks and fight back.

i believe that i saw that russia can not go on land were allie are so ( you cant help asia)
i say"Communists Defend Your Land Don’t Send Aid to the others"

No more aid for Japan, please. A nerfed China, a India who can not be aid by soviets, Dutch East Indies being limey territories (thus you cannot put USA’s ICs at them) and merry bonus who can evolute Japan to Godzilla-Japan. I predict Kill America First with all this stuff.

Japan I choose you!

chu ching!

@Funcioneta:

No more aid for Japan, please. A nerfed China, a India who can not be aid by soviets, Dutch East Indies being limey territories (thus you cannot put USA’s ICs at them) and merry bonus who can evolute Japan to Godzilla-Japan. I predict Kill America First with all this stuff.

No 3-IPC Kwangtung territory for an IC, no 3-IPC FIC territory for an IC, a longer distance to Moscow, a buffed China (yes buffed), a China full of 1 IPC territories (no possible Sink complex for Japan), an India that is harder to assault with Burma in the way of FIC.  And by the way, I am pretty sure Russia can move whatever it wants to help defend India.  Where is it you are seeing differently?  The only rule I know of keeping Russians and UK/US troops out of the same territory is the Russian bonus that is void if UK/US troops are in a Russian controlled territory.

@03321:

No 3-IPC Kwangtung territory for an IC, no 3-IPC FIC territory for an IC, a longer distance to Moscow, a buffed China (yes buffed), a China full of 1 IPC territories (no possible Sink complex for Japan), an India that is harder to assault with Burma in the way of FIC.  And by the way, I am pretty sure Russia can move whatever it wants to help defend India.  Where is it you are seeing differently?  The only rule I know of keeping Russians and UK/US troops out of the same territory is the Russian bonus that is void if UK/US troops are in a Russian controlled territory.

China is nerfed to death unless the deploy is seriously changed from gameboardgeek pictures. Japan can utterly toast all chinese units even before they have a chance to move, then China can build one lone little inf. This is China toasted, round 2. Congrats, 7 + 5 from bonus = 12 happy IPCs for Japan. Compare this with Revised Sinkiang IC building tanks and other stuff, and surviving tons of turns (yes, it can be done), and giving a mere 4 ipcs for Japan if they conquer China.

Burma territory. Sure, this is handy, but Japan goes before than UK in this game, so in fact they have the same time to defend. Without chineses supporting them, they will fall round 4 or 5, opposed as Revised, where India could resist the whole game if played correctly. And Burma gives Japan the lost IPCs from FIC and Kwa. You can still build IC at India with Japan and I remember that little tech that improves the IC production.

Japan don’t need Sinkiang IC in this deploy. With 60 ipcs, in a KGF game they will aim for Alaska, then IC at Alaska and a 4-4 chain of trannies to invade America, who would gain as much 40 ipcs. If USA, as should, build Pacific fleet, they lose Revised support from India and China (leaving only Australia, a possible but tricky strat), and even if they, I don’t know how, manage outproduce Godzilla-Japan, USA will suffer logistics because you cannot build USA’s ICs at East Indies or Borneo as in Revised, because now revert to UK control  :-P, Philippines cost only 2 ipcs and it’s too near to Japan and Manchuria, the other choice, revert to useless China.

But that deploy cannot be the true deploy

But that deploy cannot be the true deploy

Functioneta, you keep saying this but I’m pretty sure Krieghund or Squirecam or someone else who knows the set-up would correct you if the BGG pics are wrong. So we have some options:

1. An all-out attack on China isn’t a good strategy for Japan, Burma must be taken and India threatened quickly unless a UK IC building 3 tanks/turn would make things difficult for Japan.
2. Even though China will be beaten back on turn 1, they will revive due to Japan’s other targets needing units sent to it, islands to be invaded, fighters for carriers, etc. National objectives of USA might for example dictate Japanese play on the first turns, in that they must be hindered to stop a monstrous American production.
3. China falling doesn’t have that much effect on the game. India and Hawaii are the essential areas in the Pacific. While this is historically skewed, maybe it could make sense in the game.

@Lynxes:

Functioneta, you keep saying this but I’m pretty sure Krieghund or Squirecam or someone else who knows the set-up would correct you if the BGG pics are wrong.

As I’ve said before (somewhere around here), I can’t comment on the setup.  All I can say is what I’ve been saying - any conjecture on whether or not the game is broken is premature at this point in time.

Krieg has reason, until we know the true deployment, we cannot really know if the game is broken.

But the pictures of Gameboardgeek cannot be the true deploy, because China can be toasted the first turn without possiblility of recover unless soviets invest heavy resources (a option many here don’t like).

Many probably don’t know the basis of Pacific fighting. There are two ways of fighting Pacific for allies in revised: by land (ICs at India, China) and sea (Pacific USA’s fleet) or only by sea (Pacific fleet alone or aided by Australian IC). In revised, both strategies work.

If this setup would be the true, it would mean a broken game, needing heavy bids for China. Why?

1. First option, land + navy attack: You need both China and India alive, or Japan can focus on the lone survivor. Killing China in round 1 is too easy to do. Without China, India will fall even with soviet support. With China and India fallen, Japan can focus on beating the Pacific fleet or at least stopping it until Germany and Italy toast soviets. In Revised, a Japan victorious on land could reach about 40 ipcs. Now, with bonuses and additional income from China and Siberia, that cannot be properly defended by soviets with so distance, they can reach 50 even without Australia and N. Zealand. Enough production for, say, spent 40 ipcs to simply match USA’s income and another 10 to send some token forces agains soviets. Probable result is a draw in Pacific and germans conquering Moscow

2. Second option, only navy: now, you don’t need send many troops to conquer India. With about 7-8 guys there (or even worst, zero if they choose escape to Caucasus), even the initial forces can beat easily India, so japanese navy can increase quicker and even beating USA’s Pacific fleet or conquer Australia or Hawaii. Now he have the same Godzilla-Japan we would have in KGF. In revised, it would mean the same 40 vs 40 ipcs, but here it would mean 50 (or more) vs 40. Allies would only have a chance if UK puts more boats on Australia’s IC, but even then is a draw, not a advantage for allies, because of added Japan income

Thus leaves us with all the people using the same old KGF. But now Japan goes to 60+ IPCs, probably near 70, not the usual 45+, and can attack american mainland, spent money on bombers/techs to strategic bombing Moscow, making a Godzilla tank dash to Moscow or any other wicked trick they can create with so many advantage

I think the developers said they wanted make more fights in Pacific, and with so nerfed China and bad logistics for UK and USA, and so many income for Japan there would be so few options for fighting Pacific or even for allies win the game. So, I think this cannot be the true setup. Add this to the fact the developers don’t want talk about setup. Do you really think they would let someone making a photo of the real setup if they want nobody know it until we have the game?

japans fleet is bigger then usas in reallife (usa had 1 aircraft carrier for over a year)
so really america had luck with them if this was real life axis would win seriously they just buffed up usa and buffed up germany but usa and germany realife would be less buff

Do you really think they would let someone making a photo of the real setup if they want nobody know it until we have the game?

Well, after all they did play a game of AA50 at GENCON, and why would that game be played under other than the actual set-ups and rules? The only change was they didn’t play with NOs at GENCON.

I think Krieghund is alluding to something else in the game that doesn’t support your conclusions, Funcioneta. Take a look at the US NOs. Turn 1 they will probably have 10 IPCs of bonuses. They also will survive with 1 CV+ 1 DD in the Pacific. On turn 2 they could start with a fleet of for example 2 CV, 4 ftr, 2 CA, 1 DD on the West Coast. The Japanese, meanwhile, have just 1 BB, 3 CV, 6 ftr, 1 CA, 1 DD, not counting losses on turn 1. They will probably build transports for their 17 IPCs on turn 1 and their fleet is spread out over the Pacific. The US also has 2 bombers and Japan none. Turn 2 production balance would be something like 42 IPCs for Japan and 48 IPCs for USA, including NOs, and US needn’t supply a land front. (If we take the example of US going for an anti-Japanese strategy and UK focusing on Europe & Africa.)

So, even on turn 2 the US will be almost even in the naval balance if they put their production on the West coast, and in time they will get stronger than Japan. USA is much stronger in AA50 than in AAR, where the Japanese naval advantage seemed forbidding in many games. I suspect the initial advances vs. China and India will be checked once Japan will be forced to put production into naval and air units to not be smashed by the US.

Japan needed there advantage :-(

Lynxes

If you have reason about the Japan/USA IPCs and navy balance, I’ll be glad, because it would mean indeed Pacific fighting. USA would still have logistics issue (not being able to build ICs at Borneo/East Indies as in Revised, and China smashed in Japan 1), but at least we would have a chance of people playing Pacific fleet.

And about the photos, sure, GENCON games surely were played by actual rules and setups, but it doesn’t mean the BGG photos are taken from setup. They could be taken in turn 2 or 3 or even simply someone said: “Larry, put some random forces at your pleasure, we need a photo”. The 2 USA’s bomber stuff is too odd for being true. In 1941 USA was not yet at war.

We will be talking for nothing until we have the game in our hands, I fear.