I was recently trying to work out the ideal schedule for US builds. It’s a bit of a futile gesture, since the ideal schedule assumes no Pacific interference from Japan whatsover, no Sinkiang IC, etc. but in that scenario I came up with the following experiments:

Start: 1 transport, 1 tank, 2 infantry in EUS, 1 tank in WUS (I believe?)

1st turn
Move: 2 infantry to EC (a US1 attack adversely affects longer term movement)
Result: 1 transport, 2 infantry in EC
Place: 2 transports, 6 infantry ($34, save $2)
Result: 3 transports and 6 infantry in US, 2 infantry EC (total transports:3)

2nd turn
Move: 6 infantry to Europe on 3 transports from US; 2 tanks to EC
Result: 3 transports in UK, 2 tanks & 2 infantry in EC
Place: 1 transport, 9 infantry ($35)
Result: 3 transports in UK, 2 inf & 2 tanks in EC, 1 transport & 9 infantry in US (total transports:4)

3rd turn
Move: 4 (2EC+2US) infantry & 2 tanks to Europe, 7 infantry to EC
Result: 4 transports in UK, 7 infantry in EC
Place: 1 transport, 9 infantry ($35)
Result: 4 transports in UK, 7 infantry in EC, 1 transport & 9 infantry in US (total transports:5)

4th turn
Move: 9 (7EC+2US) infantry to Europe, 7 infantry to EC
Result: 5 transports in UK, 7 infantry in EC
Place: 10 infantry ($30)

5th turn
Move: 7 (EC) infantry to Europe, 10 infantry to EC
Result: 5 transports in UK, 10 infantry in EC
Place: 1 transport, 9 infantry ($35; a bit of a reach, perhaps)

6th turn
Move: 12 (10EC+2US) infantry to Europe, 8 infantry to EC
Result: 6 transports in UK, 8 infantry in EC

==============

Alternative Build Schedule:

3rd turn
Move: 4 (2EC+2US) infantry & 2 tanks to Europe, 7 infantry to EC
Result: 4 transports in UK, 7 infantry in EC
Place: 11 infantry ($33)
Result: 4 transports in UK, 7 infantry in EC, 11 infantry in US (total transports:4)

4th turn
Move: 7 (EC) infantry to Europe, 11 infantry to EC
Result: 4 transports in UK, 11 infantry in EC
Place: 1 transport, 9 infantry ($35)

5th turn
Move: 10 (EC) infantry to Europe, 9 infantry to EC
Result: 5 transports in UK, 9 infantry in EC
Place: 11 infantry ($33)

6th turn
Move: 9 (EC) infantry to Europe, 11 infantry to EC
Result: 5 transports in UK, 11 infantry in EC

I haven’t explored a South Africa strategy in as much detail as I should. Primarily its goal is to quickly cancel any attempt by Germany to gather IPCs in Africa, which to me suggests hastening Germany’s fall quickly enough that Japan cannot compensate. That’s a sufficient end in itself.

A fleet of transports ready to cross from South Africa to India, threatening an expanding Japan’s flank could be interesting. On the flip side, Africa becomes fairly well protected against an aggressive Japan. Tanks via the Suez canal can also hinder Japanese expansion.

Although the R1 attack on Manuchuria will reduce the odds for a successful J1 attack on India with a UK1 IC, I’d still hesitate. I think an R1 attack on Manchuria (this could be a whole new topic in itself) significantly undermines the Russian defence against Japan in a way that Russia cannot afford. Russian units on the Pacific coast, to my mind, is always a bad idea.

Also, this detracts from the repositioning of the R arm in Soviet Far East and places it in a vulnerable position; whereas it can be recalled from Nov. if it is not required on R2 against India.

I’d question whether a 2nd fighter in China would aid it in being any more reliably held, even with a fallen Manchuria, although I suppose Japan would have sufficient distraction to ignore it at that point with Manchuria and India needing to be captured.

I’ve liked the India IC idea ever since reading Don Rae’s essay on opening UK play, although he made a significant oversight - there are actually two Japan fighters that can enter the fray, not one.

In the event that Germany has not targetted the Suez on G1, I still like to consider the India IC play, with strategic prior positioning of Russian arm (I had not considered the Russian fighter play; that intrigues me) [aside: if Egypt is attacked on G1, I like a South Africa UK IC].

R1: Soviet Far East and Russia each move 1 arm to Nov.

UK1: transports 2 inf from Egypt/Iraq to India. Egypt arm moves to Persia. Two fighters move to Russia. IC places in India, fighter places in UK.

Japan: (going full out on the IC); 2 fighters attack transport, lands 2 infantry via its own transport; also attacks with 2 inf + fighter from Burma, fighter from Manchuria, bomber from Japan. (Pearl Harbour will be hit with only two battleships, 1 sub).

Battle:
UK: 4 infantry, 1 fighter
Japan: 4 infantry, 2 fighters, 1 bomber

Japan, we presume, wins. I haven’t analyzed the most likely casualties they would take, but suppose they keep two infantry. This may seem a big assumption, but a) only one casualty seems like very poor UK luck b) forcing a sack of Japan air power as casualties to keep more infantry may make the UK IC play worth it in itself].

Retaliation:

US1: 2 infantry can attack India; this is poor chances, but may be considered against one or two Japan inf defenders. More feasible if China fighter has survived (unlikely, if you have a good Japan player).

R2: 2 arm from Nov. attack India via Sinkiang. Now we have a better chance of success, especially if US was lucky to kill one Japan inf.

UK2: If begins in control of India - lands two fighters, moves in 1 arm, builds 3 arm - looks pretty solid (on top of surviving R2 arm), can now independently hold off Japan for a while.

or

UK2: Japan still has India - attacks with 1 arm and two fighters to delay Japan for another round. Japan will recapture on Japan2 and be building there on Japan3. BUT, it has devoted all possible time and resources to tackling India for two rounds, plus the Pearl Harbour battle has potentially not gone well and its transports will now be harassed.

I strongly try to avoid the Sinkiang IC, since this will seriously cut into funds for US shuck-shuck strategy in the Atlantic.

If the India IC is out of the question (e.g. Egypt falls to G1), India can withdraw all but one inf to begin regrouping while a South Africa IC starts up.