@Grigoriy:
Then wait and build it on the 2nd turn. Study the Japanese player’s 1st turn real carefully. Then decide.
In other words, if you still have India after turn one, build the IC? :wink:
not necessarily. Occ. the japanese player won’t look west tho’, and the German player will focus on Europe. Here’s a good time to think about the Ind ic.
@cystic:
…and the German player will focus on Europe. Here’s a good time to think about the Ind ic.
As opposed to focusing on Africa?
@Grigoriy:
@cystic:
…and the German player will focus on Europe. Here’s a good time to think about the Ind ic.
As opposed to focusing on Africa?
not too hard to do both, really.
IF Germany is focussed on Europe with no trns in the Med, then there is little “focussing” to do but a little bit of mop-up. The IC will prevent nasty Japanese from going into Africa too.
And just why must the Jap’s be nasty anyway? I can stand evil, and even being called a “yellow tide of certin doom” but nasty, well that isn’t very proper now. :P
I think this debate hinges on what happens during the R1 and G1 as to if the UK builds one or not. People have pointed out some great reasons for and good ones against. Now I played the game once with the sole intention of keeping that complex, and focused all my attention on it. If you can get the US player to give up his remaining troops that can reach it, and have russia land her airforce there, by the end of turn two it is possible to have 7-10 troops, 1-4 fighters and a tran in the harbor shutting down a small invasion force. With that much fire power guarding it, it puts the Japs in a very strange position as they won’t have the total dominance of the Asian countries that they would normally enjoy. Has anyone ever kept this IC and used it to build upon a counter attack to free Asia of the Japs?
Only build the IC in India after Japan has clearly made it’s main focus.
Most games I see Japan doesn’t take India on the first turn.
I actually have found the I complex in India to be fruitful, assuming certain things havened:
1. either russia or american presence has increased since the start
or
2. Japan’s forces have been preoccupied eastward.
Note that since India is worth 3 its very hard for japan to take it over once it gets going. So, if you can survive the first round of having it…it’s worth is.
However, I rarely use India that way when i play. I much prefer to build i complexes in northern africa (anglo/egypt sudan area). I know one player suggests building in S. africa but that’s just plain too far away, you are much better off building close to southern germany at the expence of 1 production capability. This way, you can prevent germany from taking over africa AND have a great offensive vehicle towards southern germany, AND be close enough to Russia to protect some of it from Japan! Really it’s the perfect place for an I complex - just takes longer to build up a decent sized army.
Most games I see Japan doesn’t take India on the first turn.
Well, it’s been a long time since I’ve played at all, but the few games i have played, Japan took India.
I much prefer to build i complexes in northern africa (anglo/egypt sudan area). I know one player suggests building in S. africa but that’s just plain too far away, you are much better off building close to southern germany at the expence of 1 production capability. This way, you can prevent germany from taking over africa AND have a great offensive vehicle towards southern germany, AND be close enough to Russia to protect some of it from Japan! Really it’s the perfect place for an I complex - just takes longer to build up a decent sized army
This is a good idea if you can take out Germany’s trn and Afrika Korps-otherwise, they’ll have a chance to counterattack.
i like rottnpeach’s idea of the egypt IC. it gives the brits the option of building trannies on the safer side of the suez, and they can ferry whatever units the brits build over to S/Eur
@someguy577:
The India factory can always be held for the first few turns. The biggest trick is sending two russian tanks to sinkiang or persia. Between them and whatever the USA has in china you will take india back before UK’s next turn, and then they can produce in India immediately. I doubt your opponent will attack India round one after a few games with this strategy. You can also try variations with sending a russian fighter to India round one or sending the British transport to the Burma sea zone to act as a blocker instead of picking up the iraq infantry.
my own thoughts…
By Trying to fortify and counterattack the Indian zone to keep it out of the japanese hands you waste away Russia’s Offensive power… 2 tanks could mean life or death especially if Yakut is hit…if I was japan and saw an IC great Iwon’t worry about Asia I’ll smack north withall my power and the british can try there puny production to stop me… The Germans have it better because the Brits will want to stick there 3 on the IC in India the cannot assist the Americans in serious shuck (they can don’t misunderstand me but they cannot do much)…And the Russians first turn is focused on the Indian area(you might as well hit africa)…that gives the Germans less resistance… if the japanese want to they can terrorize the americans and waste the US’s money on driving them from alaska pitting the Allies farther down… Maybe the Axis isn’t this way in thinking but playing with it could win the game for them…
MY VIEW:
It is not worth the allies money, Time, and Brains to waste on a factory in India
i like rottnpeach’s idea of the egypt IC. it gives the brits the option of building trannies on the safer side of the suez, and they can ferry whatever units the brits build over to S/Eur
A complex in Egypt sounds nice at first (better than on in SA IMO), but how can you prevent Germany from taking it in G2?
Well … UK could give up India and move both infantry and the fighter to Egypt, plus move the Syria infantry to Egypt. This would enable UK to keep it in round 2 (depending on what Germany purchased on T1). I don’t suggest this … but, it is possible.
UK would have 1 ftr, 3 inf, and 1 arm correct?
On G2, I can storm in with (and mind you, this without bidding) 5 infantry, 1 arm, and ftr/bomber support (depending on where you landed your planes G1). That’s more than enough to destroy UK forces in Egypt and make out with a free complex. :)
Yes … you are correct in that situation. But this will only happen if Germany has transports. Which some times don’t exist after T1 (depends on the Germany’s & UK’s moves). And technically any ship(s) in E. Med. SZ could be attacked on UK1 by the fighter from India and the bomber from UK. Or the bomber could attack any lone transport (like the German transport in the Baltic SZ, if it moves to W. Spain SZ to drop troops in Africa). So, it could be done.
(Not to mention the diversion from Russia).
if germany is going to take egypt, then they’ll probably do it on G1, or i do anyway. and if they do, then youre obviously not going to build one there. but if they dont, then you can have russia hold down the fort in india, and send your fighter to egypt. but if your concerned about still losing egypt, you could move the IC placement over to Syria-Iraq or to Persia
But what’s the use of producing only 1 unit per turn?
Also even with 4 inf, 1 arm, I could still use the overreaching arm of the Luftwaffe to take Egypt G2.
the point of a UK IC on continent is more for defense rather than conquest. all the UK would capture anytime early would be Libya and Algeria. then you could build one armor per turn on the mainland for russian defense/attack japs/or prep for Med invasion fleet. im trying to keep germany honest w/ S/Eur. Med invasions of europe are rare, so then can leave it virtually undefended. if you keep putting stuff for an attack from africa, so would the german player, thus diverting assets from the easter front with Russia. or you could use a Persian IC to invade via the Caucasus
The way I see a lot of games develop it’s a race between Japan trying to weaken Russia enough so Germany can take her and the UK/USA getting their act together and getting enough troops/ threat of invasion to keep the Germans honest in WEu and the east.
When I play as Japan I usually focus on Russia first and the reason behind that is because the weaker Russia is financially the better for Germany. Also, it forces Russia to divert forces to the east or else get swept in from behind. The Americans can keep the four IPC in China/Sink because the only threat they have there is the fighter to take out transports sometimes I forget to give protection. But India and the US Asian presence is secondary to putting tremendous pressure on Russia from the east.
Of course if India builds an IC, that becomes a primary target earlier on because of the ability two or three rounds down the road to launch counter attacks into the Japanese rear. Two front wars are bad.
The IC’s are good in much later rounds.
The India IC on UK1 is a valid move. Of course you must be sure you can hold it or its a waste. Done correctly it can be a real nightmare for Japan and Germany.
When I play the Allies I like to have an IC in Asia because it means rapid deployment of forces to the theatre of battle. India is a nice choice because it can be held turn 1 with minimal effort, and it has a capacity to produce 3 units.
Key points in building defending a India IC.
Cheers
Do you think the 1-2 punch of a UK Ind IC(output 3 units per turn) and a US Sin IC(output 2 units per turn) is preferrable to a lone UK Ind IC? That way they protect each other. Five(5) additional inf or arm per turn for Allies in Asia is a handful for the Axis. With 1 USSR inf shipped east each turn and UK(and possibly US) shipping ftrs to Asia each turn that’s a lot for Japan to handle.
However, this does take away from the 1-2-3 punch v Germany.
