IC placement

I played a game where my Japanese counterpart played this strategy upon my recommendation.  It was a disaster for us, because it was just not practical for controlling Asia, at all.

Obviously this is a niche strategy, but there could be some use for it - it may allow the Allies to take one of the money islands as soon as US3. Here’s the plan

UK 1:
Unite Pac fleets in sz 30, build IC Aus

Attacking sz 30 is very risky for Japan, and it forces Japan to either to do Pearl light (with more risk of an unfavourable outcome) or skip Pearl altogether.

If Japan does not hit sz 30, build AC, fig, sub, trn on US1.

UK 2:
Move sz 30 fleet to sz 40, build AC sz 40

This threatens a unification of the UK/US fleets in sz 45 on US2/UK3. This combined fleet would consist of BB, 3 AC, 5 fig, 2 sub, 2 DD, 3 trn. This is too much for Japan to take on. If you add the 6th fig on US3/UK4 (and perhaps a UK sub that you build on UK3), you can take Bor or EI on these turns. Your combined Allied fleet would be so large that Japan has to bring something along the lines of 2 BB, 2 AC, 6 fig, bomber, DD, 5 trn, 4 sub to have a good shot at it, which requires a serious investment in the first few turns.

Without the UK IC, you would not have the extra UK carrier - a loaded carrier can make a big difference, and it may save you one turn in bringing down the Japanese in the Pacific. Of course, it comes at a substantial cost against Germany - that’s why it’s not played in most games, but it’s worth a try perhaps.

Japan can try to thwart your unification by moving its fleet to sz 45 itself on J2. I’d have to double check whether that is a worthwhile strategy.

quite simply, transports have to be defended, and the allies can put have in range alot of threatening airpower before japan’s second turn…  and every ship that’s left defending them reduces your ability to cheaply destroy the various allied fleets that might be making a mess in the pacific on turn one.

Other than that, the additional transports allow for 6 units a turn, similarly to the IC’s.  The additional transports give you the ability to grab guys more quickly from the islands, as well as the ability to push on india and africa faster and harder.  But each of these require some tradeoffs (ideally, mass troops in manchuria, but if india looms you may have to deal with that, slowing the flow of 6 units/per turn.

transports assuming a factory build later also ends up reducing the flow of fast moving armor, if that’s necessary.

Don’t get me wrong, i’m a big fan of transports, but they have their drawbacks too.

there’s a simple reason not to put an IC in brazil.

If britian doesn’t royally screw up, they should build the SA IC, and coupling that with the fact that it would take a few turns for both u and germany to actually engage, the IPC’s you spent on that factory and any units you built there would be better off used to take the fight into Europe or to combat Japan in the pacific and keeping them off US soil.

All in all, it’s Britian’s job to build the units in Africa, while the US just throws attacks at the Med fleet and any German land units on the continent. The US shouldn’t be responsible for reinforcing africa via Brazil.

I’ll build two Japanese Industrials on the Mainland in one of two situations:

Most Likely - I expect a Kill Japan First allied strategy.  Either because of National Advantages selected, or because of previous experience with the person or because of how Russia and England developed their turns or all of the above.  In this case, I cannot expect to have transports and surface ships available for moving units from Mainland China to the Asian sea board, so the complexes are worth their weight in gold.

Least Likely - I plan to engage in a Kill America first strategy.  Again, I won’t have transports and surface ships to protect them for long, so I’ll need the complexes eventually.

@General_D.Fox:

Why not just do a crossword instead?  No luck involved there, just yeer brain!!!

“brain”?!

Don’t be usin those four letter words up in heah!

@Cobert:

So the best way to counter the Australia IC is to b**** out?

Gotcha.

No really though, I understand.  Thats kind of a good strategy for any nation though, just a bit hard to execute because Japan is spread out through islands.

Mm hm.

Australia is an awesome naval base that gives the Allies a great deal of freedom in the Pacific.  But either US or the UK must come to the fight with some naval units.  While they build naval units, Japan and Germany press the attack on Russia.

Japan’s position degrades very quickly after Australia gets going, but it is almost impossible for the Allies to capture Japan itself.  Far before Japan is in any real danger (with a stack of infantry and fighters on it), Germany and Japan should be able to make Russia fall.  From that point, it’s really Japan and Germany vs. UK and US.  In a 9 VC game, that means that Germany and Japan together have a deathgrip on 8 VCs (all in Europe and mainland Asia, probably including India, Karelia, and Moscow), but have probably lost the Phillipine Islands.

Since Japan cannot be broken, and Germany cannot be broken, the victory should go to the Axis, with a navy and air force fueled by Russian IPCs, and a positional advantage that allows Germany to threaten London itself as well as threatening Africa and Brazil with only minimal IPCs invested.

Of course, the Allies are not locked into defending Australia, but any IPCs spent there are IPCs not used elsewhere in those important early turns.

Never.  Never build an IC with Germany.

Two transports cost 1 IPC more.  They can shuttle four units into Ukraine a turn, or can hit Egypt.  Transports make the Allies require more time to hit the German med fleet with pure air, and if the Allies draw within two spaces of the Med fleet, the Med fleet can suicide along with German air to kill the Allied fleet.

Early game, you don’t need an IC, transports are better.  Late game, you can’t afford one.