The point of agreement on how to represent additional units is that all players can easily recognize what each proxy represents in order to facilitate game play, and it should be reached before starting the game. Anyone who would use this to attempt to gain some sort of advantage is someone you should think twice about playing with.
The UK and Industrial Centers
-
the problem with Egypt is that early in the game it’s gone if Germany is making that push, late in the game it isn’t nearly as vital and may not have much advantage.
SA complex i have had used against me 2x’s and both times it worked well to slow Germany and Japan from taking Africa. so once it’s built i usually will forget about Africa for any real combat as it becomes a money sink pit for both Germany and UK, and Germany can’t afford it. -
I’m relatively new to Axis and Allies having played two games. Both of which Japan takes India the turn after an industrial center is built there. I’m told that was a fluke.
In any event, I found four strategies on UK and industrial centers
- India
- South Africa
- India and South Africa
- Sticking with the one in London
What are the pros and cons of these choices and what do experienced players tend to do?
#4 is the only option against a strong player. period.
-
I prefer a mid to late game IC as UK instead of an early one…
AFTER UK is collecting in the mid to upper $30’s of income (minimum). And then I prefer to place it in Western Europe :-)
-
What about Norway?
-
My two cents…well, more like eight cents.
1. I would never build an IC in Egypt…British IPCs are needed elsewhere. North Africa should be handled by troops transported from England, or optimally by Americans.
2. I have built an IC in E. Canada. It was an evil game that saw horrid luck on the dice for the Allies and repeated Japanese landings into Alaska and W. Canada. This factory provided some needed troops to fight the Japanese, and was later able to sustain ten-unit landings for Britain against Germany once Japan had switched tactics.
Obviously building an IC in Canada is a rare occurence.
3. I am NOT a fan of an India IC. In order to hold it, one must present a credible threat to Japanese island income with a large US Pacific fleet, otherwise the Japanese have the freedom to utilize their fleet and full air-force, in addition to ground forces, to capture the IC.
Once you have that US fleet, why switch Allied focus to mainland Asia??
4. South Africa is an intriguing option, but again, one must present a credible US Pac fleet threat, or the Japanese will take it from you instead of the Germans.
Too often have I liberated Africa from the Germans, only to see it fall to the Japanese a round or two later because there was no credible challenge to the Jap fleet in the Pacific.
5. Australia is the best choice in my opinon. Like South Africa or India, it requires a US Pac fleet to support it. Unlike the other two locations, however, it is close enough to the US to ensure that the two can support one another in the early stages of the game. This IC also puts the Allies in the best possible position to whittle down Japanese income.
The Japanese start with 9 IPCs on the Mainland, and 13 on the islands (not counting Japan)…I’d rather be safe and in a position to take those 13 IPCs than under constant threat and only in position to take 9 IPCs.
…that’s all I got. :-P
-
@ncscswitch:
I prefer a mid to late game IC as UK instead of an early one…
AFTER UK is collecting in the mid to upper $30’s of income (minimum). And then I prefer to place it in Western Europe :-)
Switch is 100% correct here.
-
I’m relatively new to Axis and Allies having played two games. Both of which Japan takes India the turn after an industrial center is built there. I’m told that was a fluke.
If you take India right after UK builds an industrial complex, one of two things is true. Either your opponent is a dumbass or inexperienced, or you got lucky.
In any event, I found four strategies on UK and industrial centers
- India
- South Africa
- India and South Africa
- Sticking with the one in London
What are the pros and cons of these choices and what do experienced players tend to do?
The point of an Indian IC is, in the long term, the BAD thing for the Allies is seeing Japan funneling units through Persia into Caucasus and Germany funneling units into Caucasus through Ukraine and/or Mediterranean transports. Once that happens, the Axis will be sitting on Russia’s doorstep right up until the end of the game. So if you hold India, that prevents Japan from funneling through Persia.
The point of a South Africa IC is if you have no confidence in your allies at all. India requires Russian support to hold, even with an industrial complex. Africa requires US support to hold unless you have an industrial complex there (and even then). So basically, if you think Russia doesn’t want to help you in India (that’s OK, it’s reasonable), AND you think the US is a dumbass and isn’t going to help you with Africa, you have two choices. Forget about Africa and its juicy 11 or so mainland IPCs, or pop an industrial complex there. If you put an industrial complex in Africa, it’s like saying to your Allies “the hell wid u guys, Imma do my own thing lolz”, because a South African IC isn’t good for much else than defending Africa against a good Axis. (Japan should crack India, then you have to keep units in Africa to defend against Japan dropping transports into South Africa - it’s a long route for Japan, but once Japan gets a South African IC, that place is probably gonna stay Japanese.
The point of a India and South Africa IC is, well, usually there isn’t one. The problem is, you have to control the waters in the Indian Ocean to make this two-IC strategy work, and it is VERY DIFFICULT to do that with Japan’s stupid-sized fleet and air force flying around - especially if you blew 30 IPCs on those industrial complexes to begin with, AND considering you only have 3 fig 1 bomber (I assume you lose Anglo-Egypt on UK1). I mean, okay, there are ways to MAKE this work, but it isn’t easy because neither of those industrial complexes is that close to Russia, and when you have to reinforce Russia you have to leave India, and when you leave India, you will probably lose Africa soon, and then the Axis have the economic advantage . . . basically, two ICs are difficult because you have to defend them both and reposition your forces around which is pretty tricky.
Sticking with London - It’s a KGF, and you lose Africa swiftly. While you wait for the US to reclaim Africa, you don’t have a lot of IPC to spend. So get your 4-5 transports, and start chucking out eight infantry (if you have the IPC) a turn. Nice thing about London, once you have a few transports, you can drop eight infantry from London straight into Europe EVERY TURN. (the US needs TWO transports per transport load; one from E. Canada to London and another from London to Europe, but the UK’s straight London to Europe).
There are a few interesting UK1 IC build strats, but generally I leave 'em alone.
If you START with a UK1 IC (with Colonial Garrison), the India IC can be pretty nasty for the Axis to play against.
-
In my experience with Colonial Garrison India is the best location but requires a US IC in Sinkiang. Not that this is a bad thing. Australia seems to just keep japan from waltzing into Australia but that only saves England from loosing 3 IPCs. South Africa is just too far away from the action to be of much use.
Non Colonial Garrison Egypt can be quite nasty for the Axis a few rounds into the game if the conditions are favorable for such. And trading it back and forth with Germany can even work to your advantage.
-
@JWW:
@ncscswitch:
I prefer a mid to late game IC as UK instead of an early one…
AFTER UK is collecting in the mid to upper $30’s of income (minimum). And then I prefer to place it in Western Europe :-)
Switch is 100% correct here.
yes, both of you are specialist at it
you defeated me in our crazy game, in which you have built scores of units there
and you Switch are threating Berlin real hard in our game, and have beated me a few times already with the Allies :wink:
-
I’m relatively new to Axis and Allies having played two games. Both of which Japan takes India the turn after an industrial center is built there. I’m told that was a fluke.
In any event, I found four strategies on UK and industrial centers
- India
- South Africa
- India and South Africa
- Sticking with the one in London
What are the pros and cons of these choices and what do experienced players tend to do?
….5)Australia
-very hard to defend( especially in the first few rounds, later becomes much easier if well played)
if it falls to Japanese hands, the game is more or less over for the Allies, if it sustains and you play well with UK( Allies ) you can smash Japan with combined UK&USA forces in the Pacific and the combined Allied forces on the Mainland Asia
the two things to say more
-the ˝smashing˝ of Japan should be
1)Economical-simply to reduce Japanese production to very low-levels
2)Naval decline-attack Japanese navy, break it, ,and to threaten Tokyo itself
3)well…cant say it all, goota keep something for myself :wink: -
There is one thing good about Australia IC.
Its not all that useful to Japan if it falls to Japan?Any decent strategies around Australia IC?
-
I don’t find it particularly useful for England either.
-
[…]
Any decent strategies around Australia IC?Readed these strategy some time before (CaspianSub website ?!), tried it one time for myself. It worked for me, but …
Buy IC in the first round. Save money. Merge navy in SZ 30. US buys two carriers and a little tranny fleet.
Buy FIG and battleship. Move navy to SZ 38. Insert BB there. US invade Solomon islands.
Move UK navy to Solomons. Buy one more BB (if you can afford). From now on the UK follows the US navy and spend most of their income in europe/africa.Island hopping and IC build on East Indies and/or Borneo. Got control of aisa from there.
One problem could be: If England is under german pressure (tranny buy), you will perhaps not enough IPC to build the BB.
Don’t know exactly how I stop the germans. Moved UK and US to algeria first round. The german player was not as aggressive as he should be in these scenario, and if I remember right I got some lucky dices in afrika.
After all, not a solid play, I think. Win only because the axis player was totally suprised from KJF. But it can work. Perhaps more than one time, too … ;-)
-
Honestly, I have built about 7 British Industrial Complexes in S. Africa and have had none of them fall to Japan or Germany. I’ve done it in both traditional and free for all games.
I think it sounds easier to take S. Africa then it is. Bear in mind that England has 3 rounds to build up before you can land even the first couple of Japanese troops, and that’s assuming the SZ 59 transport lives and makes a B-line for S. Africa on Japan 1. Then add in complications from America landing in North Africa and Russia heckling Japan here and there.
-
Honestly, I have built about 7 British Industrial Complexes in S. Africa and have had none of them fall to Japan or Germany. I’ve done it in both traditional and free for all games.
Seems you already forgot when I took that complex and the rest of Africa with Japan in one of our quickie games?
-
Okay, one game. Sorry, I did forget ONE. But if I remember right, you got lucky and the game was already pretty much over anyway.
If England wants to keep the complex, at all costs, then there’s no way it’s falling before, oh, just to guess at a number, let’s say round 12.
-
Hi all,
Long time reader, first time poster.
Personally, I think the UK IC in India can be an excellent idea if co-ordinated into a clear allied strategy against Japan. Quite frankly, I don’t understand why so few people believe in targeting Japan and instead focus on Germany.
Japan is clearly the weaker axis player both economically and militarily. Besides its fleet, it has little other substantive forces necessary for taking the mainland in early rounds - no tanks, few troops and only 2 transports.
Allied T1 should target Japan - look at the accesibility of its key territories compared to the German turtle.
Russia: the setting up of American bases should be the goal. Move the eastern forces (6 men) into Bury to form a landing site for US avaiation. 1 Russian fighter to Sianking for defence and offense, and if you feel unsafe 1/2 men. Its range is good - it can support the six men into Manch next turn/ and or into Uk/WestRus/etc and land in Cauc. The threat to Russia from Germany is at its most minimal in the early rounds of the game and any decent Russian player should be able to handle Germany trades early on.
UK: IC into India. The UK is in many respects the key - its primary task, the most important of the game perhaps, is to sink the lone Japanese transport off the coast. At least the fighter, even the destroyer from India. What happens next depends on how Egypt transpired. Whatever occurred, move anything thats left to India. If the fighter has survived, very big bonus. Move your bomber to Moscow. Has range over Manchurian coast.
Jap: now has problems. It has one transport - the mainland cannot be effectively supplied, Russia will take Manchuria no matter what (suicidal 3 men + planes is gold for the allied player to watch a desperate Japan player do). Its fleet now has 3 big problems - Pearl Harbour, India fleet (at least carrier, plane, transport - hopefully Egypt destroyer and plane too), and planes threatening home waters - UK Bomber, India fighter can attack Manchurian coast and land in Burit; US Bomber, Hawaii fighter, Hawaii carrier fighter Japan’s pacific coast). Japan must take out Pearl Harbour - but must also send capital ships to Japan to protect transports built (2-3 on average). The India fleet is unlikely to be attacked - if it is, US fleet will rapidly dominate. In the end, will split forces and protect Japan and do Pearl Harbour light.
US: IC in Sianking. Counter-attack remaining Jap fleet at Pearl Harbour with BB, trans, fighters from Haw, LA and Bomber. Haw fighter and bomber to Bury. If Japan did not protect its new transport airforce attacks there. Build carrier and transport in LA, 2 transports East (for pressure in Africa/WEur/ or eventually Norway).
This strategy works very well because it targets the weaker Axis player - Japan has only 30 IPCs!!! It cannot afford to lose territories, capital ships or boats.
Long-term - the US fleet on t2 to Solomons, t3 to big island. BUILD another IC. UK also tries for a big island too. Japan will be left with big problems due to US airforce and russian base. Its only long-term avenue is through far east. That will take 4-5 turns. US and UK to trade Japanese mainland territories, keeping their main forces in India and away from the coast.
The further advantage of this strategy is this: a good German player will obviously play defence from turn one and thus not be able to adjust quickly from a 8-10 inf build (plus either carrier/transports/tanks/fighter). They lack mobility from turn one onwards, withdrawing into the turtle.
Focus on Japan. They are weak and allies can co-ordinate all forces into Japanese territories. Once its loses its islands, it basically can’t get them back.
Cheers
-
I’m hoping I face someone who tries that some day, all I’ve got is theories to counter it without experience. Would you care to try it against me Mattpun in a test game? I don’t take Axis at less than 9 IPCs.
-
Japan is clearly the weaker axis player both economically and militarily. Besides its fleet, it has little other substantive forces necessary for taking the mainland in early rounds - no tanks, few troops and only 2 transports.
I agree completely…Japan is a far easier target than Germany.
Russia: the setting up of American bases should be the goal. Move the eastern forces (6 men) into Bury to form a landing site for US avaiation. 1 Russian fighter to Sianking for defence and offense, and if you feel unsafe 1/2 men. Its range is good - it can support the six men into Manch next turn/ and or into Uk/WestRus/etc and land in Cauc. The threat to Russia from Germany is at its most minimal in the early rounds of the game and any decent Russian player should be able to handle Germany trades early on.
UK: IC into India. The UK is in many respects the key - its primary task, the most important of the game perhaps, is to sink the lone Japanese transport off the coast. At least the fighter, even the destroyer from India. What happens next depends on how Egypt transpired. Whatever occurred, move anything thats left to India. If the fighter has survived, very big bonus. Move your bomber to Moscow. Has range over Manchurian coast.
Solid moves all around…but I’ll point out one problem towards the end of my post.
Jap: now has problems. It has one transport - the mainland cannot be effectively supplied, Russia will take Manchuria no matter what (suicidal 3 men + planes is gold for the allied player to watch a desperate Japan player do). Its fleet now has 3 big problems - Pearl Harbour, India fleet (at least carrier, plane, transport - hopefully Egypt destroyer and plane too), and planes threatening home waters - UK Bomber, India fighter can attack Manchurian coast and land in Burit; US Bomber, Hawaii fighter, Hawaii carrier fighter Japan’s pacific coast). Japan must take out Pearl Harbour - but must also send capital ships to Japan to protect transports built (2-3 on average). The India fleet is unlikely to be attacked - if it is, US fleet will rapidly dominate. In the end, will split forces and protect Japan and do Pearl Harbour light.
There are two problems with this that I see…
1. UK spending is going to have to include units in India for at least a few rounds until the Allies can contain Japan fully…and Japan WILL be gunning for that IC. You will be spending very little in Europe.
2. If, as an Axis player, I see a Russian fig to Sinkang, and a British Bomber to Moscow, plus an India IC, I know that the Allies are gunning for Japan. My German press on Russia will be greatly intensified, especially with so much British income being sent to the Pacific.
US: IC in Sianking. Counter-attack remaining Jap fleet at Pearl Harbour with BB, trans, fighters from Haw, LA and Bomber. Haw fighter and bomber to Bury. If Japan did not protect its new transport airforce attacks there. Build carrier and transport in LA, 2 transports East (for pressure in Africa/WEur/ or eventually Norway).
The best counter for this is to hit Pearl as light as possible and use the Capital ships to hit Bury…even if it can’t be taken, it’s worth eliminating the Russian threat and forcing Russia to defend his eastern front.
I like hitting Pearl with the DD, the sub if it lived, the bomber, and the Caroline fighter…none of the pieces are vital in the long term, and it means your two BBs and two ACs can be in SZ 60 to guard your trannies, as well as spank the US if it counters with fleet.
Long-term - the US fleet on t2 to Solomons, t3 to big island. BUILD another IC. UK also tries for a big island too. Japan will be left with big problems due to US airforce and russian base. Its only long-term avenue is through far east. That will take 4-5 turns. US and UK to trade Japanese mainland territories, keeping their main forces in India and away from the coast.
A sound strategy, but I think it’s underestimating how vulnerable a Buryatia airbase is, and overestimating just how much the UK can bring to the fight.
The further advantage of this strategy is this: a good German player will obviously play defence from turn one and thus not be able to adjust quickly from a 8-10 inf build (plus either carrier/transports/tanks/fighter). They lack mobility from turn one onwards, withdrawing into the turtle.
If Germany breaks through in Egypt, is not countered, and UK spends heavy in the Pacific…little is left to stop the Germans. A second round tank build can catch up to a first round infantry build. Combined with luftwaffe support, and little to no UK/US pressure, by round four the Russians will be yelling for help.
Focus on Japan. They are weak and allies can co-ordinate all forces into Japanese territories. Once its loses its islands, it basically can’t get them back.
True enough…but if the Allies are delayed, which is certainly within Japan’s capabilities, it is extremely difficult for the Allies to switch focus to help defend Russia.
Japan can also go all out for the Allied ICs and focus on aiding Germany against Russia, giving up on the Pacific…letting the Allies blow their money on a large navy while Russia stands alone against the Axis. Japan might fall before Moscow, if the Allies can reduce their income fast enough, or they don’t get a chance to expand on the mainland…but I wouldn’t count on it, it takes a lot of fully loaded transports to crack Japan if any effort is made to defend it.
As much as I agree that Japan is the easier target, I think going all out against them causes many problems for the Allies in the long term. Grind Japan down slowly…don’t gun for a Borneo IC on US 4…instead ensure that Africa is retaken and Japan is booted off the mainland…THEN gun for their islands and their fleet.
Cheers.
Right back at ya! :-)
-
I too would thoroughly enjoy such a game–pretty much just KJF, right?–but it’s not gonna be me who initiates it.
I’ve heard KJF can be useful because it catches people offguard. I suppose that can be true, but anyone who has played A&A for a long time (or AAP at all) will probably have a good idea of how to react with Japan.
And I still think KJF is majorly sub-par:
-
The Western allies spend a lot of money building those SAf/Ind/Sin/Aus ICs, and really any supply of Japanese troops whatsoever will be able to hold orange territory and take at least one or two ICs back.
-
Germany will effectively have carte blanche in Europe and Africa. Sending a few US troops to Africa or a few UK troops to Europe (even each turn) is awfully similar to sending none. Not just that it’s not more than 0 troops, but also that Germany will just blast the US/UK troops away with it’s airforce, battleship, and massive numbers of inf/art/arm.
-
The US/UK will still have to provide cover for their Atlantic transports if they want to keep them very long.
-
Even with a counter-Pearl Japan will end US1 with 2bb 1-2ac 4-6ftr and home-team advantage (its naval builds reach the front faster than US/UK’s). Good luck.
-
UK will have to leave troops on its mainland doing lots of nothing to prevent Germany from just building 5-6 transports and taking London. Add up that (at least like 8inf) and 2 ICs and you have two rounds of UK spending and no troops in Asia to show for it.
I love the idea of KJF, but unfortunately :cry: it’s only any good in AAP or if you just wanna have fun. I’ve never played out an AAR KJF game, so I could be dead wrong, but those are some pretty strong arguments.
-
Suggested Topics
