Some things I've learned

@GeZe:

also you can funnal supplys to russia from the india IC, tru persia,sanking or afganistan with out all the transport stuff

But you can’t funnel enough this way. IC in India can “funnel” maybe 2 units per turn, but it really can’t because you need to keep everything you can in India just to hold off the Japanese. With the Karelia pipeline, I can put 6 BR inf and 10 US inf into Karelia PER TURN. No brainer.

@Ansbach:

I agree with all 3 of these in general, although there are some inaccuracies in your reasoning.

1.) If you as the Allies have somehow allowed Germany to get close to India, you have big problems!.

But is it really so farfetched? All Germany has to do is take Caucasus, and they are a blitz away from hitting India.

Mind you, I am assuming that Germany has taken Karelia as well, which becomes a lot more likely if Britain builds an IC in India, because that means they have not attempted a navy yet. If Britain spends its money on an Indian IC, then they are not going to build a navy on that turn, allowing Germany to use its air force to hit Karelia and take it with force.

@TG:

Hahahaha, Germany taking Caucasus? Looks like the Allies weren’t doing their job right. :roll: .

Well my reasoning here is that Russia has put everything into Karelia, and left one token inf in Caucasus. That is how I would play Russia - what are your suggestions? Is this a weak strategy?

@TG:

Besides, no German wants to split his invading force between Caucasus and Karelia.

What I had in mind was a situation where Russia had stacked Karelia, left one token man in Caucasus, and Germany had taken Karelia using everything it had (it could use all its air force because UK had not bought a navy). Then, Germany takes Caucasus with maybe a few extra inf to spare - Russia can’t afford to invest the men needed to take it back.

With Caucasus in Germany’s hands, it can afford to hold off on a Russian invasion. While steadily building up Karelia for an assault on Russia, it can funnel a few ARM per turn down through Caucasus to Syria-Iraq. Again, Russia can’t touch these guys. After the Syria-Iraq ARM force gets built up to a decent size, it can really threaten India and its IC. The double beauty of this is, that you might even get the British to syphen a few fighters off from Russia to shore up India, weakening Russia even more! Either way though, the India IC is toast because it’s now being hit from two sides.

So: the basic point I am making is that when you say “the Allies must not have done their job” I agree, and I think that buying an IC in India is part of “not doing their job.” Britain wastes its money buying, and then keeping alive, this IC, which prevents it from helping Russia.

What do you think?

By the way, the above two replies by “Guest” were me - I forgot to name myself.

I tend to agree that an Indian IC by the UK doesn’t delay japan for long enough, and in fact speeds up japan quickly after they inevitably take it.

I’ll give you a scenario that I’ve faced in past games:

UK1: UK retreats 1 inf. from persia to india using the transport, leaving 3 inf., 2 fighters (assuming 1 russian fighter is moved into it)

J1: Japan attacks china, killing the US fighter and infantry, tranports all available infantry to kwangtung, lands fighters there, and builds a factory in it.

UK2: Builds 3 inf. leaving 6 inf, 2 fighters

J2: Builds 3 armor, leaving about 7 inf, 3 arm, 3 fighters.

UK3: Builds 3 inf, leaving 9 inf, 2 fighters

J3: Builds 3 armor, moves inf. into French into china, leaving 6 arm, 3 fighters in Kwangtung

UK4: Builds 3 inf, leaving 12 inf 2 fighters

J4: Japan attacks Kwangtung with 8 inf (7 from kwang, 1 from french-indo china) 6 arm, 3 fighters. Japan takes india with about, say, 3 armor.

In my opinion, this delay of japan is not significant enough to warrant an Indian IC. And keep in mind, the 3 tanks/turn is only about half of the Japanese income. During this time it is likely ferrying in troops from Japan,
and making deep advances into asia and russia, possibly building a factory in manchuria to speed it up. Japan has really been delayed only slightly, as
only two turns worth of armor have been diverted to capturing india.

UK could also opt to build tanks every turn, however, they would be easily counter attacked by the japanese forces in kwangtung, weaking the defense of india and forcing UK to spend more money every turn.

On the other hand, I believe a South african IC can work rather well:

Ger1: Invade french east africa with 4 inf (2 from transport), 1 tank. Assume no losses.

UK1: Transport over 2 inf into territory directly below frech east africa, fly fighter to south africa, build IC there.

Ger2: Attack Territory below fr. eas. afr, assume 1 inf. lose.

UK2:build 2 inf, or possibly 1 inf 1 fighter.

Germany will now face 3 infantry and 1 fighter( or, preferably, 2 infantry and 2 fighters) vs. likely 3 infantry and 1 tank. Barring lucky dice, germany will not be able to take it, and the UK can now pump 2 tanks a turn and retake africa.

The germans are now faced with two options:

1. Build transports, and pump more men into africa

or

2. Forget africa, concentrate on defending europe, crushing russia.

If they choose the first option, they’ll have to buy at least 1 or 2 transports, and it’ll be at least 4 turns before they can take S. Afr, and even when they do take it they will gain very little from it, as they will already have all of africa at that point.

If they choose the second option, UK gains the 11 prod. from africa, and then can push forces into asia in attempt to aid the likely beleagured russians.