Has anyone else found that Japan has an easy time invading India if it focuses on it completely. After the first turn, I swing everything (and I mean everything!) around Malaysia for an amphibious landing. I pretty much ignore the US after Pearl Harbor and just try to stall their approach. I have not failed to win by turn 4 using this strategy (I only did it twice before deciding it was too easy and therefore broken).
I haven’t really played it enough to say for sure.
The US can rebuild and move in quite close well before turn 4 if they see that your fleet is on the other side of the pacific. This can lead to an early invasion and the Americans wreaking havoc with your supply lines into SE Asia, stalling your progress.
It seemed to me that it was pretty easy to delay the US with some subs and other ships not needed in my amphibious landing in India. The entire US fleet can be right outside Japan but it won’t matter if they don’t have enough ground troops. I komakazi transports of course. I also buy Infantry the turn before they land so they’ll need to bring a pretty serious force. It just seems the US can’t do enough damage in time. They have to take Japan on turn 4.
Word to the wise, you never want to kamikaze transports.
The Americans don’t have to build up any ground forces to bring Japan to it’s knees; an invasion is completely unnecissary. By cutting your supply routes and killing Japanese transports, the Americans can effectively cause any offensive they are trying to perpetuate to grind to a halt very quickly. Then it’s a simple matter of taking the convey routes and the few territories that don’t need them with the Brits and Chinese and the Japanese don’t gain any VPs, effectively making them lose.
Hmmmm…perhaps I’m not making myself clear. It is all about the clock. By the time the American fleet reaches Japan (3rd turn or later), I don’t need to produce any more units for the invasion of India so cutting me off is irrelevant (they couldn’t get there in time anyway). I’ll produce infantry to defend Japan or aircraft. All I need to do is get 1 VP and keep Japan.
On turn 1, the US is regrouping at Hawaii or split between there and Australia. On turn 2 my invasion force is around Malaysia/Java/Borneo so I can threaten Australia. The US will move 2 sea zones away from Japan or move to Australia. I usually use my carriers and subs to slow them down, any casualties in their fleet is a bonus. On turn 3 I launch a minor amphibious assult on India so I can shore bombard (assuming no naval combat) and bomb with aircraft then retreat. The US moves into Japan but probably can’t invade with enough troops. On turn 4 I launch a major assult on India with everything I have. If the British are split between Burma and India I attack both so there can be no counter attack. I take India and the US assults Japan and/or tries to blockade as many territories as possible. Obviously I would work to minimize this to keep my required 10 IPCs. Fortunately, India is 5 all by itself.
Using this strategy it is clear that the US would be able to mop up Japan in a few more turns but it won’t matter because Japan will have held onto India for a turn.
I have taken India by turn 3 once (due to an inexperienced opponent and luck) and turn 4 another time by ignoring most of the rest of the options. I focus more on killing the enemy in Asia and the British fleet than actually taking and holding the islands. It doesn’t matter how many infantry they have in India because I practically have that many aircraft.
However, I’m not hearing much agreement so I guess I’ll reevaluate my position. I assume the best counter is for the Allies to fly fighters to India. Really my question should have been, have you won as the Allies on turn 4?
(I’d rather kamikaze carriers, if given the chance)
I still don’t believe that Japan can amass a fleet (with enough infantry and transports for invasion) by turn 4, I’ll have to verify this for myself when I get home. If the Allies are very intellegent they can build at least 30 infanty in India in a couple of turns, plus whatever they can get from the Chinese. Combine that with a US fleet sitting outside of Japan by the time you’re ready for an invasion and Japan will never be able to hold both India and Japan this early in the game.
I was under the impression that Japan could win only by capturing either the U.S. or BOTH India and Australia. Even if Japan could conquer India by the fourth turn, that would be irrelevant, as they don’t have control of Australia. It states very clearly in the manual that simply capturing one of the two British capitals does not make Japan win.
No, one of the capitals makes you win. They stated that you can win by capturing The United States of America, Austriala, or India. They listed them, not stated that both were needed. The only Capital that doesn’t make you win is Schezwan.
No this strategy is true, out of the various A&AP forums and discussion sites I’ve been to none of them go by without mentioning this. One tournament also concluded that 15 out of 17 players who used this strategy won in rapid succession more than once and all 17 won at least once. Many players on other forums now say that during their games they mutually agree to not allow use of this strategy.
After the first turn Japan can really begin the large shift of its power towards India. India itself can only get 9 infantry on the first turn (that’s saying that India gets all the money from the convoys) and China is relatively ineffective since it can initially get only two infantry to India within the time that Japan attacks.
Breaking it down: from Szechwan to Yunnan to Burma to India.
First turn China moves its two Yunnan Inf. to Burma and three Szechwan inf. to Yunnan.
Second turn Japan is approaching around the Malayan peninsula, China moves its two Burma Inf. into India and three Yunnan inf. into Burma.
Third turn Japan begins invasion in two ways First it either invades all out or it dose a first minor invasion intended to loosen some of the units down in India (if Japan takes the second move then China will be able to get three more inf. to India)
Then breaking it down on Japan and India’s perspective.
First turn Japan invades certain areas that will cut down IPC’s of India mainly, Japan also begins to send whatever units that will not be used on the any invasions or attacks to the South.
First turn India gains all Convoy IPC’s and buys 9 inf.
Second turn obviously Japan has taken India’s main resource pools, Borneo, Malaya, and Hong Kong forcing it to rely on convoy money. (in fact Japan only really must invade Malaya and Hong Kong and just cut the Convoy Route of Borneo, it wont get the Borneo IPC’s but it will make up for it in un-lost units) Japan buys inf. and places them in its boarders. Saying that none of the Convey Centers were taken and all the money goes to India that will leave India to by 6 Inf.
Third turn US enters into kamikaze Zones Japan will have enough inf. to prevent any serious invasion and Optional Kamikaze use. (And the US cannot bring anything into the main resource areas to cause any serious damage IPC wise within this turn) Japan then brings its power down on India; with all luck it should have enough force to counter India’s 15 inf. and China’s 2 inf. and anything else within India.
Forth Turn Japan holds India due to the build up in the sea zone of naval units and surviving land units and achieves victory.
Now that is only A BASIC OUTLINE OF THE STRATEGY AND TURNS, obviously other things change and stuff so I don’t want to hear that there are different things that can be done to succeed and prevent this because obviously there are.
15 infantry!?!?!?
If I play India then by turn 3 I usually have 23!
If you completely focus on India then Australia will take back anywhere in the East Indies possible, China might retake Hong Kong or something else, and America’s fleet wont be hurt by Kamikaze because it’s so huge, America will destroy the convoy routes and probly take over Korea/Manchuria and whatnot.
it doesnt matter if the aussies and americans get strong. just as long as they dont take japan by turn 3 (which is impossible) it doesnt matter, b/c by then japan will have already won
Do you think that changing the starting income where India gets the islands north of australia or taking away the transport abilities of destroyers would help.
The India rush is a good feint, the more you can spread out your enemy by forcing him to defend the many possibilities you create the better. However, it’s not a ‘bullet proof’ strategy. By going ‘all out’ on India you can get all 7 starting artillery and 21 infantry with 11 transports and 6 destroyers on turn 3 (or so you think). Don’t count on land forces from Burma unless your foe is in a drunken stupor. Being a smart Japanese player you hit Yunan and Shan State to eliminate 3 allied infantry that could get to India by turn 3. However, since your foe is not in a drunken stupor s/he will NOT allow the Japanese to hold Shan State or Yunan so you can’t base a whack of fighters on these, ergo, you only get 4 fighters onto India for T3 by flying 2 from the carrier to India then to Japanese held territory and 2 from there to the carrier. Toss in 2 bombers and NO naval bombardments thanks to a bit of allied foresight with the sub and/or other navy. So with that force you have 34 units with an offense of 62 sans the 1 AA hit on average you net 59 offense with 33 units.
Assuming on Turn 1 Japan prevents India from getting money from Hong Kong, Malaya and Borneo then India can build 9 Infantry on T1 and 6 on T2. Since the US can get to Australia easier than India, India always gets the convoy money. The fighter from the carrier on SZ 50 flies to India on T1 while it can and the US helps with its 1 fighter in Szechwan giving India 23 Infantry, 3 artillery and 3 fighters; 29 units with a defense of 64.
That’s hardly a slam dunk and assumes Japan doesn’t lose any transports/destroyers after taking the Phillippines and Borneo. A motto for the allies, strategic sacrifice. The Bitish only have to take out 1 or 2 transports to tilt the battle towards the allies. Stick your transports in the Japanese way to force a fight while keeping subs behind to prevent a Non-Combat move into a sea zone. This can limit the Japanese navy to a crawl.
For instance on T1 if you have navy in SZ 43 use 1 piece (Transport) as a blocker in SZ 47, move the carrier and battlewagon to SZ 52 along with the DD from SZ43 and put the submarine in SZ 53, now the Japanese are halted at SZ 43. On T2 block SZ 52 and 53 and place the sub on SZ 54. Yeah, a battleship and or carrier as a sitting duck hurts but it prevents Japan from hitting India on T3. By T4 the Japanese neglect is hurting and India is 1 turn stronger on defence, should have 5 more infantry and at least 1 more british fighter from Australia via the carrier from Java.
The best Japanese stragegy is to remain flexible, keep you offense pointed at the US, slowly pull back and rack up the VPs. Vp’s are all the matter, aim for 3 on T1, 4 on T2, T3 and T4 if it only costs a few transports. Now you are 6 away, its easy to get 6 more in 2-3 turns by sacraficing your navy as a blocker.
The above post was actually mine, not logged in yet again I noticed…
BB
