Yet another reason the India crush will be defunct in global

[purplebaron]

So far, people elsewhere on the forums have identified several reasons while the India Crush will not be a valid strategy in Global (which is not to say that taking India won't be an important goal, just that the headlong charge we're seeing now won't work as well).  Chief among those reasons are:
1) The UK will be able to support India with units from Africa/Middle East and production from the South Africa Complex.
2) The USSR can threaten northern Japanese territories (and also possibly shuttle some infantry directly down to India.

To these, let us add one more.

3) The India troops will have room to maneuver.  In AAP40, the UK troops have their backs to the wall (or the edge of the world, as it were).  In global, they'll be able to step back to West India (not to be confused with the West Indies ).  The Japanese assault in the first few turns is a glass cannon--only a few land units with massive air power, lending them huge offensive capability, but little capacity to hold a territory.  By the time Japan is knocking on India's doorstep, their income will be reduced to 4, so losing that income isn't that big a deal.  If Japan goes full up India Crush in the first four turns, the UK can (even without extra units from Africa or support from the USSR) buy one or maybe two turns by retreating out of India and retaking it on their turn.  These extra few turns should make the difference in letting the Allied production catch up with them.

[oztea]

The ol' bait and switch.

Too bad infantry are twice as good on defense as they are on attack. Abandoning india would result in Japan just taking India, then use its massive airforce to suicide attack the West India territory, strictly to neuter the UK counter attack.

Holding India (-3 UK, +8 Japan) is so important that the sacrifice of the Japanese Airforce would be justified.

[purplebaron]

The ol' bait and switch.

Too bad infantry are twice as good on defense as they are on attack. Abandoning india would result in Japan just taking India, then use its massive airforce to suicide attack the West India territory, strictly to neuter the UK counter attack.

Holding India (-3 UK, +8 Japan) is so important that the sacrifice of the Japanese Airforce would be justified.

Ahhh, I had not considered that.  I think you'll still be OK for one turn, as the first turn that they capture Burma, their planes will be out of position to capture West India.

[Autarch]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Europe or Global, since these factors do not pertain to OotB Pacific.

[bennyboyg]

The ol' bait and switch.

Too bad infantry are twice as good on defense as they are on attack. Abandoning india would result in Japan just taking India, then use its massive airforce to suicide attack the West India territory, strictly to neuter the UK counter attack.

Holding India (-3 UK, +8 Japan) is so important that the sacrifice of the Japanese Airforce would be justified.

Ahhh, I had not considered that.  I think you'll still be OK for one turn, as the first turn that they capture Burma, their planes will be out of position to capture West India.

Yeah, the only way they'd be able to get planes into West India the turn after they took burma would be with carriers, which would probably amount to a max of 4 planes at the most which way to little to do enough damage.

[oztea]

4 bombers & 2 fighters and 2 tac bombers

Alot of hits....if it means "holding" india from UK counter attack....id do it.

[finnman]

Another reason that India will have it easier is because they will have british N.O.s and war bonds to spend.

[oztea]

Another reason that India will have it easier is because they will have british N.A.s and war bonds to spend.

Wat?

NAs are passe'; and war bonds? Thats a tech.

[SAS]

Another reason that India will have it easier is because they will have british N.A.s and war bonds to spend.

Wat?

NAs are passe'; and war bonds? Thats a tech.

Even still, war bonds only gives an average of 3 extra IPCs, not a lot to go on.  That does bring up an interesting question though, assuming war bonds remain a tech, how will that work with the UK's split income?

[finnman]

Another reason that India will have it easier is because they will have british N.O.s and war bonds to spend.

Wat?

NAs are passe'; and war bonds? Thats a tech.

I meant N.O.s and there will be techs in the global game.