India I.C.

[cystic crypt]

It is only occassionally that the idea of an Indian I.C. placed by the British in UK1 actually works. My experience has been that often it doesn’t, and the majority of people appear to be against it.

Are there any circumstances that you can see this working? Assume excellent co-ordination by the allies (and let’s not assume “perfect dice rolls” or “idiot Axis players” or “no-bid” - i mean realistically).

[MagicBoot]

Realistically? No matter what UK & USSR can stack in India by J1, Japan can always pass up on Pearl and take India strongly. This jumpstarts the conquest in Asia twofold, the free IC pumping 3 units a turn, plus the elimination of a sizable amount of the allied asian resistance.

[Jennifer]

Yea, if Japan really wants India, nothing you can get there will stop them from taking it. And I guarentee you, if you put an IC in there, I’ll jump on India like a starving man on rice if I’m Japan. That’s 15 IPCs X2 + 3IPCs for the land + opportunity cost as I can now build tanks on the mainland to supplement infantry. I think that outweighs a Sub a Carrier and a Plane (although, i’ll probably strafe Pearl Harbor anyway with the other BB, a bomber and the sub in hopes of getting one or two of those on round 1.)

Edit: Just a note,

BB + Bmb + Sub vs AC + Ftr + Sub in Pearl is:

56.9% Chance of Attacker winning
31.7% Chance of Defender winning
11.4% Chance of Mutual destruction

with an average of 2 rounds on a simulation of 100,000 battles. However, the results drastically differ if you bring a transport in AND if you only go one round, aiming for the carrier or the fighter, you can retreat and be in a really strong position. (Hell, odds are with 10 attacking points (LL) you’ll get 1 hit at least, probably even 2 hits.)

This way, if USA counter attacks, you pull their fleet out of position from assisting Europe instead of just being a pitstop on the road to Europe like you would in Hawaii. Just a thought

[darkangel]

i have to agree. japan should be all over india if there is an ipc there. like the abouve comments. it will help out japan greatly, and advance any conquest of the USSR by a few turns. the allies would be a bit harder pressed if japan took it.

[Jennifer]

Worse, the allies will be severely hurt because Brition just wasted half of it’s starting IPCs building something for the axis AND is making less money now then it was previously. (-3IPC for India, -5 or 6 in Africa for a total loss of at least 8-10 ipcs world wide.)

Besides, if you build an AC with Brition, you cannot afford an IC in India. :) The ONLY reason I beg the UK to always build one! (Better would be to hold your money for a full turn and buy your fleet then or just go with nothing but bombers. This allows the USA to be more flexible in deciding Europe, Pacific (counter a Japanese assault) or Africa.)

[DarthMaximus]

I like the Indain IC on rare occasions.

If you have a serious shot at KJF, then I like it.
More so in RR, where the bids are lower.

I think in high bid games it is hard to commit an IC to India.

[cystic crypt]

You see DM - this is why i like you.

This is exactly what i was talking about. If you were doing a KJF strat - wouldn’t it be silly to NOT put an IC on India? A UK IC in AUS would not be a terrible idea, but you are doing nothing to support US and further UK ops in China.

Now let’s say you are simply playing a no-bid or worse a no-bid, no-RR game. I think that an IND IC might be a pretty fun way to play, and generate a mild challenge for the allies (could even be a house rule).

At the same time, i could imagine a KGF strat where if the Germans appear to play a power-Europe strat, an IND ic might not be such a terrible idea as well. It might take some temporary heat off of Russia, force Japan south, and maybe even get more Pearl forces into the European theater (thinking long-term).

[Avin]

If you are playing LowLuck, there is only one scenario that will guarantee keeping a British controlled IC in India past J1.

Russia must land a fighter in India on R1.

In all other cases, Japan has a good shot or possible guarantee at taking out India on J1. Other determining factors include:

• Bid: Japan bidding any units within striking distance of India, particularly infantry in FIC or armor in Kwangtung, will seriously cripple India’s chance of survival

• R1: If Russia attacks Manchuria, that will possibly eliminate one fighter that is within striking range of India.

• G1: If Germany attacks Egypt or Syria, that can potentially eliminate two infantry that are transportable to India on UK1.

• UK1: As mentioned, the UK can transport its Egyptian/Syrian infantry to India. The sub in EMD can also be moved to BEN for fodder if it didn’t die on G1. A mutually exclusive (but rather far fetched and inferior) option from transporting the infantry is moving the transport in BEN to SCH, which blocks the Japanese transport in SUL from unloading in India.

However, even taking all of these variables favorable to the Allies (no bid in FIC/Kwangtung, Russia takes Manchuria, Germany does not kill any of the significant British units, the UK moves both infantry to India and sub to BEN), Japan still has a 22.6% chance of taking India (4 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bmb vs 4 inf 1 ftr after 2 ftr vs 1 sub 1 trn).

Of course no Japanese player will probably try such a risky battle, but the circumstances above are highly dependent on the above factors. The most likely scenario to prevent this is for Germany to attack the British sub in the Eastern Mediterranean, and for Japan to bid at least one infantry in either Manchuria or Burma. With those two changes, we now get an 88% chance of conquering India if Japan had placed an infantry in Manchuria, ensuring the fighter’s survival, or an 87% chance if Japan had placed an infantry in Burma and Manchuria was lost.

[DarthMaximus]

Those are good points.

Obviously if Germany has taken out Egy and/or Syr (due to bid or whatever) then an Indian IC is out of the question.

But certainly with Russian help (ie a ftr) or if Ger had a bad run in Egy, you can probably get a away with it for a change of pace type game as CC suggests. Esp if you sub was able to retreat to the Red sea and you can have it help protect the Ind sz.

[Jennifer]

@DarthMaximus:

Those are good points.

Obviously if Germany has taken out Egy and/or Syr (due to bid or whatever) then an Indian IC is out of the question.

But certainly with Russian help (ie a ftr) or if Ger had a bad run in Egy, you can probably get a away with it for a change of pace type game as CC suggests. Esp if you sub was able to retreat to the Red sea and you can have it help protect the Ind sz.

That’s a lot of if’s, especially for a bid game. If you play straight up no bid, standard rules, you’re still counting way too heavily on luck. Even if Russia puts a fighter there, Japan can still easily take the land without loss of a single fighter, you may only have 1 infantry left and leave Manchuria and Kwangtung open for invasion from America, but you’ll have stopped the British from forming a “beach-head” in Asia. With that killed (and maybe even a Russian fighter if they are fool hardy enough to risk one there) you can easily retake your empire and move into Russia as now you can build armor on the shore instead of only shuffling troops/armor from mainland Japan.

The gambit’s too risky. You are hoping Russia puts a fighter there. You are hoping Germany doesn’t cream Egypt and/or Iraq, you are hoping for good defensive rolls and maybe even a chance to bring your sub over, and you are hoping for bat offensive rolls.

Or

You could just focus on Europe/Africa and not have so many variables.

[cystic crypt]

@DarthMaximus:

Those are good points.

Obviously if Germany has taken out Egy and/or Syr (due to bid or whatever) then an Indian IC is out of the question.

But certainly with Russian help (ie a ftr) or if Ger had a bad run in Egy, you can probably get a away with it for a change of pace type game as CC suggests. Esp if you sub was able to retreat to the Red sea and you can have it help protect the Ind sz.

Of course as the UK follows Russia and Germany, it would be shear folly to place an IND IC with any of:

1. a strong Africa or BUR bid,
2. a terrible R1 - i.e. loss of a ftr
3. a favorable turn for Germany in EGY.

The tricky bit is to place the RUS ftr in IND at the end of R1. Once you do that you either commit yourself to a degree of reinforcement in IND, an IC, or the loss of a RUS ftr.

The thing is - suppose you do go strong in IND - what would you expect Japan to do/what would you do as Japan?
What would the pros and cons for the US be in terms of their movement in this regard?
And considering that these are all hypothetical situations, “if” statements are equally acceptable.

[221B Baker Street]

suppose you do go strong in IND - what would you expect Japan to do/what would you do as Japan?
What would the pros and cons for the US be in terms of their movement in this regard?

I would think Japan has a couple of options:

1. Ignore the IC and pound on Russia as usual, only suppling enough forces to keep any serious attack from the IC at bay. The advantage of this for the Axis is that any forces in India are not being used to protect Russia or threaten Germany so more early pressure is on Russia.

2. Work to take the IC. Regardless of how the Allies try, Japan can take the IC if it wants by J3. The advantage for the Axis here is that the $ spent by the Allies on India have not produced a lasting effect, other than some additional time granted to Russia. Also, the IC in India does enable Japan to easily send more forces to Asia, Africa, or even Caucasus.

Either approach seems to be reasonable to me, but I would probably take the IC as Japan.

The United States on US1 also has a couple options, assuming the IC remains in Allied hands at that time and that Japan has not taken all US territory in Asia.

1. The US could also build a factory, perhaps in Sinkang.
2. The Asian forces could be moved to India to help protect it.
3. The US forces could be retreated to Russia to help protect Russia from Japanese attacks.

The choices here are really dependant on what Japan did/seems to be trying to do.

If Japan is going hard for Russia, then as the US I would send the forces to Russia to aid in defense there. If Japan is going hard for the India IC, then I would send the reinforcements there if I thought the IC could hold out for a couple of turns, otherwise I would again retreat to Russia. If Japan appears to be trying to both take the IC and Russia, then I might build the IC which would have the effect of slowing Japan down further.

With Regards to the remaining naval forces in Pacific, if Japan left Pearl alone, I would consolidate the navy and go to Australia or Island hop to the India IC again depending on whether or not I thought the IC would hold out for a while. If Japan did attack Pearl and was successful, I would probably send the remaining forces to Europe.

These are just my thoughts on what I would do, certainly there are lots of possibilities out there and I’m sure I am missing some good options for both Japan and US.

[Cecrowca]

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.

[cystic crypt]

Thanks Cecrowca! That was beautiful.

[aaFiendish]

@Cecrowca:

b) forcing a sack of Japan air power as casualties to keep more infantry may make the UK IC play worth it in itself].

Indeed. I recently played a 3rd edition game where we put down an India I.C. Japan, much to our surprise, clobbered it the first round saccing an ungodly number of fighters, all but one that could reach I believe. While having wasted IPCs and an IC for the brits, I think the end result was fairly favorable.

In 2nd edition though, I am not so sure that forcing japan to sack air power would be worth it. I would say this simply because there is not that much air power to sac. Even if they lost two fighters they have a few more to spare, and being able to build a tank or two on the mainland will supply the offense that the fighters usually provide.

I do not think that an Indian I.C. is sustainable or generally worth the resources if playing a KGF strategy. It does provide extra time for Russia on the east. However, Russia (assuming bid) will have ample cause to worry about Germany in the first few rounds if it is trying to help out the UK, and the UK is not helping it. Even without a bid I suspect Germany would look fairly frightening to karelia, though probably not enough to take karelia solidly.

Cecrowca, have you considered the russian attack on manchuria? For your strategy I think it would be most beneficial. If you send your infantry, armor, and fighter against Manchuria you will probably win, and can then land your fighter in china. This first off eliminates the fighter in manchuria, strengthening your hold in india. Secondly, you can land your fighter in china afterwards. As you said, Japan will want to take china. Placing the russian fighter there may be quite beneficial in keeping the US fighter alive, making your attack against india much stronger. It will also force more casualties and force diverted to china if japan wants to take it, causing more casualties that would later be used against india and also distracting from force that can be brought against india.

[Jermofoot]

Hi-

This is my first post, so I’ll try and make a good impression. Also, excuse me for the absence of A&A patois and appropriate acronyms.

An IC on India is not a bad idea, but coordination by the Allies is key. Russia must set up to anticipate the purchase and the US must follow through. I’ve successfully placed an IC on India as UK (playing as the other two Allies also), and I’ve demolished one as Japan (a game where I ended up having 6 IC - only one I purchased - sacked Moscow, and collected over 60 IPCs a round later on).

Assuming you’ve covered the bases elsewhere and you have any sense at all, it’s quite possible. You’d have to feel out the placement, but there’s two options. Place on UKs 1st turn, or assault as the Allies on the first round and place on UKs second turn. As always the die rolls will determine your final strategy.

I consider Japan as the one whom determines the fate of the game, so you have to be aggressive with them, and also when you face them. Placing a well-planned India IC can give the Allies the edge.

[gerard]

i dont like the idea to place a IC in india in Uk1, whenever im playing japan and i see the allied players do that i just hit india on J1 and that messes up the allied strategy big time, i skip pearl and go for india, there is nothin more useful than a free IC. in the following turns ill use my flees to fight the americans.

[Cecrowca]

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.

[aaFiendish]

The manchuria attack has to my knowledge been debated approximately 43,242 times (not that the indian i.c. hasn’t either). The point I was making was that if you wanted a strong I.C., you would want to attack manchuria. Stacking those troops makes them negligible if japan is going for the I.C., as japan will just skirt around them that way and they will have to retreat at some point. Using the troops directly against japan creates a very tangible result and significantly strengthens the southeast against japan.

Certainly, I do not think the fact that the manchuria attack aids an Indian I.C. can be questioned, though it does provide the very normal agressive argument to the manchuria attack in general. Lets try not to talk about that frequently followed argument and instead focus on what the manchuria attack does for the indian I.C.

If that 2nd fighter in china would aid in it being held, IF an Indian I.C. has been placed and Japan is following your idea of attacking the Indian I.C. China can certainly be taken, but can india as well? Assuming you DID attack manchuria (and won) and DID place an Indian I.C., Japan’s attack against India becomes at most 4 inf + 1ftr + 1bmb. If you decided to do that, then you’d have 2inf + 1ftr (jp) vs. 2inf + 2ftr (ru). That’s a 2% win with japan, 20% if there is 1 fighter. Of course, japan will probably realize that they cannot do both, which is the whole point. Instead they may attempt to take china. They can bring to bear 4inf + 2ftr + bmb. Most likely they will take china with 1 inf, maybe 2. With only one fighter there, it will be 2 inf, maybe 3 and they will take with 99.8% probability instead of 95%. Is that worth losing a russian fighter for? Probably not, so that aspect of the move may be questioned. I usually use it if I am going to kwangtung with britain too, which I wouldn’t do during an I.C. Of course, the truly ballsy move would be to hit manchuria with infantry and fighter only, which is only a 63% take vs 90% with the armor. But if you did win that battle, you could move the armor in noncom to china. That brings the most likely results of the china battle to japan only taking with 1 or 2 planes.That would put a large stall on japanese advancement.

All of my mumbling aside, going for manchuria and eliminating that fighter means that the india i.c. will face at most 4inf + 1ftr + 1 bmb, which reduces the chances of a take from 90% to 60% and more importantly makes the chances of it being taken with ground forces less. On top of this, even though you state that china will be taken by a good japanese player, they will not have the best chance to take it even IF they used the bomber from japan.