UK ICs

[atarihuana]

@Flying:

I’ll have to look again but it seems if Japan wants to take India it can BUT they have to commit everything on turn 1 to set it up turn 2 don’t they? If they are all out for India they have to forget about other targets. I think it depends on Japans first turn whether or not it is wise to build an IC in India.

I have not played as Japan yet but it seems Australia is a better and easier target on turn 2. It is setup by the turn 1 attacks on Borneo and new Guinea.

funny you say that cuz i have found a set up J1 for india (even if russia sends troops) which involves burma (ofcourse) east indies, new guiniea, borneo kwangtung for 2nd NO.

it doesnt hit phillipines J1 (the fleet is sunk of course) and it doesnt hit … the Flying tigers. :mrgreen:
once british players sees this, it would be best to move his forces out to aid  china/ russia, which allows you to take australia and india, phillipines J2 ^^

[Croggyl]

I think an IC in South Africa should only be build if Germany doesn’t take EGY or conquer it with less then two tanks.
Otherwise following scenario is possible:

• GER take EGY with two tanks left
• UK build IC in SAfr
• ITA take Trans-Jordan with tank/inf, move two inf from LYB to EGY, land fighter there
• GER tank blitz to Italien East Africa (IEA), land bomber at EGY
• UK build two tanks and (a) move one inf to RHO or (b) stack both inf in SAfr
• ITA bridge inf/tank/fighter to RHO (kill any british troops there) and open the way for GER
• GER attack SAfr with two tanks and bomber
• if GER not take SAfr, UK build two more tanks (should be three or four tanks there now)
• ITA strikes with inf, tank, fig, cruiser, battleship
  Could be enough to take that IC.

Option:
JAP take East Indies at first turn with 2 inf, sink the uk ships before indian coast (sz 35) and land two fighter at CV at sz 37. Take Madagascar at turn two and strikes to SAfr before UK3 to kill any units left there (possibly take it) so that at worst case after UK3 only two tanks are there.
The two japanese fighters could land at IEA at JAP2 to free that CV for the pacific theatre.

Disadvantages:

• german bomber is missing at european theatre for four turns
• UK could re-attack EGY with two inf and bomber and kill german tank(s)
• ITA must take Trans-Jordan at ITA1 to open suez channel
• (most of) italien navy is out of position for Mediterranian Sea after ITA3
• JAP have to bring CV/fighters that may needed at pacific theatre
• UK could bring australien troops via Cape Horn and take SAfr back at UK3; ITA may not have enough troops to take SAfr again

I’ve seen that scenario (without JAP) in my last game. GER take EGY with art and two tanks, uk build SAfr IC, GER blitz to IEA, UK stacks two inf at RHO, ITA clear RHO, UK build two inf, GER take SAfr.

[I like Ike]

Just out of curiosity.  Has anyone tried the strat of buying an IC in India for UK on turn one then placing 3 subs there on turn 2?

Haven’t tried it yet but I thought it may be an interesting twist to help keep Japan from island hopping and reaching pacific NO’s.  My thought (brief as it may be lol) was that the 3 subs could keep Japan from sending unescorted transports all over the pacific and force them into “wasting” money on surface warships (particularly destroyers).  This in turn could also help slow down Japans “bulking up of land units” for the Asian invasion.  And giving the Indian IC some much needed time to build land units and preserve the IC……

Any thoughts on this or am I just out of my mind? :-D

[bbrett3]

@I:

Just out of curiosity.  Has anyone tried the strat of buying an IC in India for UK on turn one then placing 3 subs there on turn 2?

Haven’t tried it yet but I thought it may be an interesting twist to help keep Japan from island hopping and reaching pacific NO’s.  My thought (brief as it may be lol) was that the 3 subs could keep Japan from sending unescorted transports all over the pacific and force them into “wasting” money on surface warships (particularly destroyers).  This in turn could also help slow down Japans “bulking up of land units” for the Asian invasion.  And giving the Indian IC some much needed time to build land units and preserve the IC……

Any thoughts on this or am I just out of my mind? :

that might work, but then you would immediately lose the IC to Japanese ground troops.  If yo want to start making ships out of the Indian IC you would first need to secure most of mainland Asia

[I like Ike]

@bbrett3:

@I:

Just out of curiosity.  Has anyone tried the strat of buying an IC in India for UK on turn one then placing 3 subs there on turn 2?

Haven’t tried it yet but I thought it may be an interesting twist to help keep Japan from island hopping and reaching pacific NO’s.  My thought (brief as it may be lol) was that the 3 subs could keep Japan from sending unescorted transports all over the pacific and force them into “wasting” money on surface warships (particularly destroyers).  This in turn could also help slow down Japans “bulking up of land units” for the Asian invasion.  And giving the Indian IC some much needed time to build land units and preserve the IC……

Any thoughts on this or am I just out of my mind? :

that might work, but then you would immediately lose the IC to Japanese ground troops.  If yo want to start making ships out of the Indian IC you would first need to secure most of mainland Asia

OK play tested this a couple of times and it didn’t turn out well.  If the Japan player focuses primarily on the Northern Asian front then the IC stands a chance of surviving and helping Asia in later rounds.  But if the Japan player focuses primarily on the Southern Asian front (which IMO should be done for J1 & J2) then the complex doesn’t stand a chance.  By J3, Japan now has a nice new complex and Japan can put pressure on Russia from the North and South.

[Unknown Soldier]

Any other thoughts on a South Africa IC?

I agree that this is probably the only viable IC if you’re playing experienced players, for the reasons you point out. Honestly I have no idea how people are building Indian ICs, for example. This just simply cannot work if Japan has any clue. The Australian IC could be viable in some games, depending on the J1 opening moves. 2 figs and a bmr from the US reinforce, and the DD in sz41 blocks the transports in the Philippines sz from hitting on J2, giving you time to build and get a couple more fighters down there. The problem is, it’s really not all that useful even if you can hold it. Unlike the Indian IC, you can’t really threaten Japanese territory by building tanks, and Japan can simply ignore you for the most part if they want, whereas they CANNOT ignore an IC in India.

I’ve only seen the S. Africa IC a couple times, but in both cases Italy eventually overwhelmed it. You really need US help in Africa immediately if your going to do it, I think.

[Uncle_Joe]

I like an IC in South Africa.

You can usually extricate your Australian fleet and send it to South Africa as well. From there, drop a CV and a plane or even just a few DDs/CAs and you are business peeing in Japan’s pool and threatening to take back the DEI. Its a fairly minimal investment, but it can cause Japan major headaches (assuming the US is playing in the Pacific, which I consider required of the Allies).

So, IMO, a factory in SA does the most important things for Britain.

1. It helps retain control of Africa (2 tanks a turn is enough to make it very hard for Italy to take Africa, especially with a minor US/Brit ‘Operation Torch’).

2. Helps retain or retake Brit possession in Asia. Japan simply cant split her fleet effectively enough to deal with the US and keep the Brits pinned (unless they forgo a KO on China and/or attacking Russia, both of which I think are bad ideas).

Currently I havent seen a GOOD answer to a Brit IC in SA. Three games out of three, the Allies have won with that strat. I have yet to have fight against it yet. Twice I was Britain using it, and once I was the US and the UK player and I made a mess out of Japan.

I highly recommend trying it in most ‘standard’ games. If the Germans try something silly and starting BB survives (or both the CA/DD in Gib), then I’d prolly go with a more ‘traditional’ Brit game. But barring that, drop the IC in SA and then start creating ‘harassment’ forces in England as well. Generally I’ve found that the income I save by not losing Africa and/or recapturing at least one of the DEI area is enough to pay for the units being produced at the factory so its not like it really slows you down in your efforts to land on the Continent.

[wodan46]

An India IC build wouldn’t work against my basic (non-crazy) strategy.  I would do Transports to Kwantung, Burma, Philipines, Borneo, and East Indies on J1.  On J2, the Borneo and East Indies Transports shift the 4 Infantry to India, along with the forces in Burma(1-4 units) and a Fighter or two if need be.

[DarthMaximus]

I’m not a huge fan of a round 1 UK IC.  I think Ind/Aus would be nice but I think most Japan players will be in position to take them on J2.  IMO they are just too conditional to build a solid strategy around.  As for Safr, I’m against that b/c I think transports are far more effective.  2 trns only cost 14 ipc and you can get 4 units to Afr.  Even if you only dedicate 1 trn to Afr, you still get 2 units which is the same as an IC.  Also with trns you aren’t locked in to defending the IC later or left with a something that outlived its usefulness.

[Unknown Soldier]

2 trns only cost 14 ipc

Well this part isn’t exactly true. With TPs you have a very high up-front investment you need to make building up a fleet to protect the TPs, whereas you do not with the IC. This needs to be factored into their cost somehow.

Your other points are definitely valid though, and I agree with your overall conclusion about TPs being more effective.

[DarthMaximus]

I would think in most games you should have to buy fleet protection anyway.  You already will have 1 trn (either sz 2 or sz 9) to protect.

To counter that, an IC might have to be protected from a SBR.  An Axis bomber in Afr could make the 15 IPC IC cost 21 or worse UK has to periodically pay 2-4 in damge just to use it.

[Unknown Soldier]

Yup, I can’t disagree with any of that.

I was merely pointing out that a direct cost comparison between the two is quite difficult.

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

To counter that, an IC might have to be protected from a SBR.  An Axis bomber in Afr could make the 15 IPC IC cost 21 or worse UK has to periodically pay 2-4 in damge just to use it.

I’d prefer have that bomber SBR saf than SBR soviet ICs or killing units, even if I don’t have a aa gun in saf. And you could try ferry the one from Australia anyway

[Uncle_Joe]

I think an IC in SA is a heck of a lot more versatile AND less vulnerable than 2 TRs. IMO England pretty much needs to keep her fleet farther north most of the time to take Norway/Finland and to constantly harass France/Northern while still threatening Germany/Poland/Karelia (if lost).

Also, the IC can build minor navy to threaten the SoPac, alone making it worth the price of admission IMO. :)

[a44bigdog]

I am another fan of the South African IC. It adds a lot more flexibility than the somewhat cost equivalent of 2 transports in the Atlantic. The IC in S. Africa can produce troops in Africa from round 2. An Atlantic navy may or may not be able to ferry troops to Africa in round 2. Once Africa is secured it can be used to sneak out a few naval units to pester Japan with Also.

I am a big fan of an Australian IC. However there is a caveat to that. The only time to place an Australian IC is if things go wrong for Japan and it appears that you can hold such. This does not happen in many games but in the ones it does happen in I feel the UK should invest in such. By producing a few units in Australia you can bring it to the point Japan will not want to invest the resources necessary to captured such. Australia is also the hardest to achieve for the all of National Objective so if for the cost of an IC and a few units Australia can be held against Japan this will pay for itself when the other objectives are met.

[chunksoul]

I build my factory in NWY

it means you can get 5 1/2 boats every turn into germany

it’s good as it build pressure

but it depends on what happens in africa

if they do turn 1 egypt i think it’s not good in nwy

but realistically your only options are SAF
and Nwy

but it depends on what the axis are doing.

South africa can be a risky manuever and if i am going KGF i probably don’t need it with americas in africa.

[bugoo]

The more I think about it I feel an IC should be built on turn 2 if your fleet is off in SZ 12 or 4 and should be built where you will get the most out of it.

[DarthMaximus]

I would like to amend my thoughts on an India IC.  Before I said:

@DarthMaximus:

I think Ind/Aus would be nice but I think most Japan players will be in position to take them on J2.  IMO they are just too conditional to build a solid strategy around.

And now I feel, even if you know you can hold it beyond J2-3, it is still not worth it.  The only way it might be viable would be if you know J won’t have a shot until after J3 and you go all out with the US in the Pac.  But this opens up a can of worms in the Atlantic.

In my tourney game, I had a very favorable setup for a UK IC on Ind so I decided to try it and was able to pull Egy survivors as well as 2 troops from Aus to Ind (for a UK 2 landing).  I even got my ftrs/bom there and continued to buy inf + ftrs for att/def and I still needed Russian help.  I was also able to do a significant attack on Japan killing a bunch of rt/arm in Bur setting J back another turn BUT even that wasn’t enough.  Japan still cleared Ind later and can pretty much walk in next turn, which I think will be rd 7.  Granted China is starting to come back a bit and Jap has been severly slowed but the Ind IC isn’t holdable and the Allies are taking a beating in the Atlantic since the UK had to spend so many resources on defending the IC in the earlier rounds.

It’s an interesting game and Russia is going to end up being pretty strong, but I pretty much did all I could to hold the IC and it still falls to a determined J player.

As I said, a possible alternative would have been to go all out Pac with the US but seeing as how Ger/Ita have kept the US (with minor UK forces) in the Atlantic at bay, with no US presence in the Atlantic I think London would be in serious jeopardy, making a Kill UK First strat very possible.

[Crossover]

@Gallo:

I’m on the opinion that an UK IC in India is nothing but a nice present for Hirohito… but if you want to walk that walk…

a) Since Japan moves first then UK (in 1941), watch out what Japan does on its first turn… they may not commit everything against India on their first move.

If an Indian factory seems soundable…

you should have moved two USSR infantry to Persia on Turn1
then send as many UK fighters to India via London-Moscow (turn1), Moscow-India (turn2)

Be aggressive against Japan everywhere else…

one big step-back about the India IC is that it requires a big commitment from the UK… trying on holding India you may lost Africa to the Italians and you may not be able to mount a soundable attack against Germany (specially if Germany obliterates the Royal Navy during its first turn)

1. moving UK fighters + bomber to a Russian territory = no 5 IPC NO for Russia if you use NOs !

2. your tank + fighter survived ? What the heck did the Germans roll?
   Statistically a German attack with tank from France + Inf from Morocco, all units from Lybia + Bomber from Germany will end with either German tank + bomber or only German bomber, UK units will normally die.

3. Why did Japan moved all against India and forego other targets? I don’t see.
   Japan can easily take Philippines (3Inf + art [from Japan] + 2 fighters). East Indies + Borneo will be taken both with 2 Inf. Use 2 Inf + 2 fighters for Kwangtung attack, ignore Russia, but use your transport and Cruiser from SZ 61 and attack Burma.
   Attack UKs Indian fleet with 2 fighters and land them on AC that moved SZ61 to SZ 37.

Japan is ready to take India in R2 with 1-2 Inf + art from Burma, 2 Inf from Borneo and 2 Inf from East Indies, a cruiser and 4-5 fighters (one may be lost when attacking UKs DD + transport), 2 fighters from AC in SZ 37 + 2-3 fighters from FIC.

Yes, UKs AA gun may shoot down another fighter, but the attack is overwhelming.

If UK pulls out everything - are they strong enough to attack 7 ground units ??
Even if - Japan will capture India slightly und bring new units from Japan to FIC (17 IPC = 1 Transport + 2 tanks) or build 2 tanks in FIC if an IC was build there on round 1 (an interesting opening move !)

So, how to protect that round 1 IC in India?

[bugoo]

The other nice possibility for the IC is SAF is i’ve noticed alot of players leave the UK SZ12 fleet live.  That fleet can head down to the SAF IC to link up with more boats built on turn 2, which is about the only way and probably best way to get boats into the pacific for the UK (the aussie boats can even get there too, just leave US planes in range to sink the jap carrier if it decides to hit it).

This could give you a navy on turn 2 there of 2 destroyers, 1 cruisier, 1 AC (your planes flown down turn 1 or US planes from Australia), 1 trans, +1 more boat.  More than Japan’s typical AC and/or cruiser floating in that area.

Now it wouldn’t be until turn 4 that they could take anything, but can anyone think of ideas to go along with this?