Excellent First Turn Options for UK

[Ranor]

You asume a german bid for Africa and then you keep Egypt this sounds strange. In spite of a recently discussion on this board I guess 95% of the german players take Egypt on G1. So the Med destroyer can’t pass through the channel - In most cases he will also be destroyed on G1. Furthermore The british Batleship in the Meditaranian See will definitly be sunk by Germany, so there are no fleets left (except the candian trn) to unite.

I don’t advocate for an IC in India because UK has to make insane efforts to prevent Japan from taking it (around J3), so it will be very week in Europe. Germany can alter it’s G2 or G3 purchases to threaten a sealion, now UK has to choose between defending UK and India.

[newpaintbrush]

Re:  The Original Post:

This twaddle purports to be an “article”, and

This will be one of the largest tactical consolidations ever during your axis and allies experience.

But I can sum the entire post up in two words.

Utter fail.

I tried to resist, for Darthmaximus.  But . . . I COULDN’T!

Also - what the heck does that poll mean?  The poll fails too . . .

(edit) - he fixed the poll, at least.

[Funcioneta]

First, this trhead should not be a poll. Is only a question.

For India IC surviving J1, is need a tank from russians and all you can send to India, or Japan can simply send all they can to India with reasonable chance of taking (or weakening so much that is easy take it on J2. Also is a must send the indian dd to kill z59 trannie.

For preventing G2 or G3 Sea Lion, is better send the RAF to kill the baltic fleet (or at least, kill the trannie). Even if you lose the figs, is better play safe and not risking lose England. Of course, a G1 ac is another history.

For conserving Indian IC post J3, is needed sending all you can to India: surviving figs from RAF, bomber, USA fighter from Hawaii, maybe some USSR tanks (tanks, because they can back to Stalingrad in 1 move if Germany is getting so strong), and buying both Sinkiang IC and Pacific USA’s fleet (at least 2 turns of fleet).

That means UK and USA are going to press less on Germany, so better if you buy tanks or infs for India, not figs, or you’ll have a hard time in Europe. If Germany not kills Canadian trannie, UK can send (at least) 4 units to Africa/Norway/Arkangel a turn and USA can send token forces from East Coast, but for this, you cannot spend 30 ipcs on figs on UK2 or Luftwaffe will kill the allied boats.

Thus, Indian IC is difficult to play, but can be done. Of course, a z8 sub bid can kill this strategy completely, and a even z14 trannie can still be annoying (buff, even a Japan trannie in East Indies  :-P). Not always playable, as you see, but when I can, I like trying it.

[FM_Rommel]

Is it really so wise to use your strategic bomber against Germany’s industry so early in the game?

Me and my friends rarely use our bombers against IC’s unless it is to strangle a country completly(for instance if the russians are on ± 15 IPC’s left).
In our humble opinion it’s better to save your bomber for battles, because it has a high success rate.

[Funcioneta]

@FM_Rommel:

Is it really so wise to use your strategic bomber against Germany’s industry so early in the game?

Me and my friends rarely use our bombers against IC’s unless it is to strangle a country completly(for instance if the russians are on ± 15 IPC’s left).
In our humble opinion it’s better to save your bomber for battles, because it has a high success rate.

Very true, especially with UK bomber. Better send against baltic fleet, counter Egypt or sending to Moscow and then India or trading Norway/Karelia.

[Jennifer]

The IC in India can be viable, but it takes resources away from Russia making Russia less viable.

If you are going to do it, do it on UK 3 when Japan’s forces are too far away to congregate before you get a round or two of builds in.

Otherwise, put an IC in S. Africa, own Africa outright without needing your fleet for more than a turn to land troops there and start landing forces in Arkhangelsk as soon as possible to invade THROUGH Russia into Novosibirsk against Japan.

[Adlertag]

You dont have a clue

[Jennifer]

@Adlertag:

You dont have a clue

I sure hope you are not talking to the reigning Kill Japan First Queen on the Internet with that reply.

[bcclark7]

For the skeptics….

First of all the thrust for the US and UK should be to limit German IPCs.  The best way to do this is through strategic bombing.

Putting an IC in S. Africa is nearly worthless due to the remoteness of the location and the small production value.

I agree that avoiding Sea Lion is a must, but I have yet to see Germany pull that off when there is a competent UK player. The UK must find a way to get in the fight, and playing it safe on the Island is no way to do it.

Adlertag, this was just a suggested strategy. Try to be somewhat mature about this please.  No one strategy is the best, however this one tends to be more successful than not.

Germany taking Egypt is not a foregone conclusion on turn 1. Britain should have enough time to evacuate. This post was a best case scenario. Obviously your ships will be attacked in the Med, and everything won’t work out perfectly. Since it is hard to get UK troops on the mainland it is important to consolidate them and keep them from being killed in meaningless skirmishes.

Sorry about the confusion on the poll and the question, this was my first post and didn’t quite understand the mechanics of the site. Thanks for all the positive feedback.

[Jennifer]

I have found the IC in S. Africa to be a vital and valuable asset to the allies.

1)  It prevents Germany from blitzing down and getting fast cash if Egypt goes well for them.
2)  It prevents the need for England to invade North Africa
3)  It prevents the need for America to invade North Africa
4)  If Japan gets uppity, you have resources to put units in Africa without having to divert your fleet

India, on the other hand, will fall on Japan 3 if you build the complex on UK 1.  I guarantee it.  Well, the only chance you have of survival is if Russia builds all tanks and shoves them down there as fast as possible (which means Japan doesn’t even have to attack Russia, they’re effectively SBRing for 20 IPC a round if you do that) or if you get amazingly lucky with the dice.

Now, I HAVE found that a 3rd round IC in India is nice.  By this point, Japan’s good and scattered and will need to come back.  Also, Africa is 100% secured so you won’t be choosing between hitting Europe or Asia.  Top it off with America’s fleet already an established presence and threat in the Pacific and Japan may not have the resources for both - and once Japan loses the fleet, they are lost even if they have 6 ICs on mainland Asia (Manchuria, India, Kwangtung, FIC, China and Sinkiang) because they won’t have cash after the islands are gone.  And without a navy, there’s no way for them to build up enough to sink the Americans.

So if you advocate a UK IC in India in round 3, then I agree.  Otherwise, the only valid location for an IC I can think of, on UK 1, is S. Africa.  Safe from attack, strategic in location, and pays for itself after just one round of holding Africa without diverting British ships for the process.

[bcclark7]

Jennifer,

Thank you for the constructive critique of this strategy. I do see that you have many valid points. One thing that I have to point out though is that if you do build an IC in India first turn you have to be wise with your money. That is the only thing I would purchase on turn 1. The reason is that I would then have enough IPCs to buy three fighthers there in India for turn 2, and could get an additional 3-4 fighters there from egypt, my carrier, and GBR. This strategy is not fool proof, nor is any strategy. If Japan expends all effort to go after your IC on turn three then that will be a desperate battle on both ends. I would have to give the advantage to India because any attack by Japan would be against a lot of fighters with a high defense value. Also India has the AA gun, and any attack by Japan would be full of aircraft. I am hosting a game on Saturday and I am going to try this. I will post the results and see how it works. Thanks again for the tips.

[bcclark7]

Jennifer,

I have been thinking more and more about the S.Africa Strategy for an IC location and it is a very good suggestion. The India option of mine was primarily to combat an aggressive Japan while not losing units to a German player that is deadset on taking Africa. Like all internet posts I think people forgot to critique this strategy in its original intent. I look forward to further discussions with you.

[Jennifer]

I’m glad you thought about the S. African complex some more.

As for your Indian Complex, I think you should realize that on Japan 3 you will be facing:  15 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, 6 Fighters, Bomber and 2 Battleships.

You will have to figure out a method of defending against that and I do not think your fighter idea is going to be enough.  Also bear in mind that Germany is not just going to sit there, that means units taken from Russia without British replacement is really going to hurt you.

I’m not saying it is impossible, just that I’ve been working on the UK 1 Complex in India for the better part of a year against some of the greatest minds the internet has to offer and I have not yet found a way to make it viable.

Even round 2 is becoming a troublesome dilemma for putting a complex in India.  Round 3, however, seems to have merit depending on how the forces are laid out.  Basically, round 3 ends up giving you a good two rounds to build up before Japan begins to build against you and can force Japanese units out of Asia and off Russia’s back to come get that complex in India.

Which, summarily, is why I like starting with a complex in S. Africa. (BTW, I have built a second one in Egypt before.  Nasty move when it’s done!)

[Complexity]

@bcclark7:

First of all the thrust for the US and UK should be to limit German IPCs.  The best way to do this is through strategic bombing.

Actually, strategic bombing is the worst way to do this. On average, your bombers will take away 3.5 IPCs (assuming you only bomb territories with 6+ IPC values). Your bomber will be shot down, on average, on its 3rd or 4th bombing run, so you will remove around 10 IPCs from Germany’s pockets before your bomber is destroyed by an AA gun. If you are buying bombers specifically for this purpose, you’re losing even more, because you are immediately down 15 IPCs for each new bomber, but won’t remove ~10 IPCs from Germany’s wallet until the 3rd or 4th turn. Money has a time value.

I only do strategic bombing in 3 cases:

1. There’s no AA gun present and no better target for my bomber.
2. It’s late in the game and, for whatever reason, I won’t need my bomber after this turn and can afford to lose it (really rare).
3. I know exactly what my opponent needs to buy the next round and stand a good chance of preventing him from buying it with a bombing raid. This usually happens when I think he’ll buy something like 2 carriers or some other large naval buy.

@bcclark7:

Germany taking Egypt is not a foregone conclusion on turn 1. Britain should have enough time to evacuate.

Basically the only time I see Germany forgo Egypt is when they’re setting up a Sea Lion attempt. If that’s the case, the UK doesn’t need to be playing around in India.

[bcclark7]

I have heard you mention that a turn 3 IC in India is a better move. If you can’t hold India with an IC and troop buildup against Japan, then how could you hold it without an IC there? It seems that by turn 3 when you want to build an IC there in India, Japan will already be in control of it. I am really glad I started getting into these forums. Another question……If you build your IC in S. Africa it seems that the whole goal would be to maintain the status quo at the beginning of the game by keeping the majority of Africa in British hands. If you wish to expand your IPC income, where do you attempt to do that? It seems with this strategy you can only maintain your income, not expand it. I understand that the UK is more of a supporting player. Is it safe to say that simply holding Africa and harrassing the Axis is all you can really want out of the UK?

[Nukchebi0]

You do it in Europe, through Norway.

[bcclark7]

Strategic Bombing

You are absolutely right that strategic bombing generally costs more for the allies than it takes away from Germany. So if you are looking at the ratio of cost, you are right. What I think you need to understand is sometimes in the case of the US, losing some money to take money from Germany is still a victory. Strategic bombing is the best way for the US to inflict pain upon Germany. The UK should be able to handle Africa, with some assitance in the form of the torch landings by the US. The way the rules read is that each bomber can inflict a max of the territory value. It is not uncommon later in the game to be sending 4 bombers at Germany. Anytime Germany cannot send troops to the Eastern front they are losing. I have a friend who actually purchases 6 research dice for heavy bombers as the US on turn 1 and then for the rest of the game simply bombs Germany into submission. It is quite effective. Now I always thought that allowing each bomber to inflict the countries worth of bombing was a little excessive, but that is how the rules read. Our US player generally ignores Japan for the most part.

[Nukchebi0]

What you need to do to not make the game fail in that manner is make it so each raid can only inflict the max value of the territory. Instead of bombing Germany to nothing with six heavy bombers, he can kill 16 IPCs max a turn. The rulebook is not what you should be consulting in this case, as it is wrong.

[Complexity]

@bcclark7:

The way the rules read is that each bomber can inflict a max of the territory value.

I haven’t read the rules in a long time, but this is not how the game is played. Like Nukchebi is saying, each strategic bombing raid can inflict the maximum value of the territory. So if you’re bombing a 6 IPC territory with 3 bombers, you’re only going to inflict a maximum of 6 IPCs of damage. The game is extremely imbalanced in favor of the allies if played in the way you describe :-).

[Ranor]

Germany taking Egypt is not a foregone conclusion on turn 1.

A typical G1 move in the Med and Africa could be:

1. 1sub, 4fig to SZ 13 –> killing the british bb at the cost of a sub
2. 1bb, 1trn, 1fig to SZ 15 --> killing the british dd for free
3. 1inf, 1art (Lyb) + 1inf, 1art (bid to lyb) + 1inf, 1arm (Seu) +1 bom (maybe another fig if UKr wasn’t attacked) --> killing all british units in egy at the cost of 2inf

I agree that avoiding Sea Lion is a must, but I have yet to see Germany pull that off when there is a competent UK player.

I’m not talking about a G1 attempt of sealion, but on G2 if the german player sees the IC in Ind he could build some trn and maybe an AC. This will slow him aggainst russia but since you didn’t atacked the german fleet he can easaly have 4 trn by turn 3 together with the german airforce this is a considerable threat to London (you only brought 1arm on UK1 and bought nothing). So all I’m saying is: you now have to divert ressources to your capital and therefore India will be weaker.

The same can be pulled of on turn 3 since Japan is going to have it’s attacking force positioned on turn 2 so the attack on India is going to happen on J3. (see Jens numbers)