UK ICs

[Woodstock]

@tin_snips:

keep in mind that just because you bought it, doesn’t mean you have to place it straight away.

Do you mean “You dont have to place it there, you can place it soewhere else aswell”, or do you mean “You dont have to place it now, place it in round 2”?

Because the latter is not an option, according to the FAQS.

[Perry]

India/Australian IC = instant loss to Japan

Suth Africa IC: now, this one will prolly survive, and what it will accomplish is that it will stop the axis from ever gaining SAF. Also, Africa will be retaken 1-2 turns quicker than else. However, it will mean that UK will devote 15 ipc in a one-time investment, and then 6-10 ipc/turn , for units built inf SAF. Perhaps not the best way to use UKs limited funds in -41 scenario…

[Woodstock]

@Perry:

India/Australian IC = instant loss to Japan

Suth Africa IC: now, this one will prolly survive, and what it will accomplish is that it will stop the axis from ever gaining SAF. Also, Africa will be retaken 1-2 turns quicker than else. However, it will mean that UK will devote 15 ipc in a one-time investment, and then 6-10 ipc/turn , for units built inf SAF. Perhaps not the best way to use UKs limited funds in -41 scenario…

Dont forget that it can be a nice take off point to the pacific/asia aswell.
If we actually have to choose a location (Im not sure UK shoud buy one at all), then IMO it should be this one.

The most secure, the most versatile.

[allies_fly]

Doesn’t an Australia (or even Indian) IC depend alot on what Japan has done.

If Japan goes all in to  Russia, they may not be in position to threaten a UK IC for a round or two.

Australia is a VC country, and there’s lots of cash around it, so that might be a worthwhile investment.

[Perry]

@allies_fly:

Doesn’t an Australia (or even Indian) IC depend alot on what Japan has done.

If Japan goes all in to  Russia, they may not be in position to threaten a UK IC for a round or two.

Australia is a VC country, and there’s lots of cash around it, so that might be a worthwhile investment.

The thing in -41 is, that japan doesnot need to choose….

They can take China, IND, AUS AND capture east russia…there’s not too much strat involved. it’s mainly to optimize piece usage…

[rockrobinoff]

@Perry:

The thing in -41 is, that japan doesnot need to choose….

They can take China, IND, AUS AND capture east russia…there’s not too much strat involved. it’s mainly to optimize piece usage…

That really is it. Japan strategy is reduced to economy of force and speed.

[captainjack]

@Woodstock:

@tin_snips:

keep in mind that just because you bought it, doesn’t mean you have to place it straight away.

Do you mean “You dont have to place it there, you can place it soewhere else aswell”, or do you mean “You dont have to place it now, place it in round 2”?

Because the latter is not an option, according to the FAQS.

Is the FAQ up yet?  I haven’t seen it on the AH website??
Thanks.

[Lynxes]

The thing in -41 is, that japan doesnot need to choose….

They can take China, IND, AUS AND capture east russia…there’s not too much strat involved. it’s mainly to optimize piece usage…

The game we played last weekend I tried to just push all at Germany with UK and it didn’t really work out that well. The big problem was that I tried to go for France after having wiped out the Italian fleet rather than eliminating Italy completely. Also, my low IPCs after a few turns kept UK down and couldn’t build air force or enough naval units.

I do think that a South African IC is a really good deal. You can spend as little as you want if the Axis ignore Africa but otherwise its a good starting point to avoid UK falling to 20 IPC/turn which was really awful in our game! At least with Africa below Egypt you can stay at around 27-28 IPCs which is a minimum to be a threat to Germany.

As for Japan I think the choice in the '41 scenario is whether to focus on attacking the US mainland in order for Germany+ Italy to finish off Russia with US occupied defending West US, or to do the old JTDTM. A really good Allied strategy should be able to deal with both these strategies! Japan takes China, India and Australia, yes, maybe, but that needn’t be fatal if the Allies know what they’re doing.

[spectre_04]

One strategy that worked well for me was building an IC in Australia on the Frist turn, thus giving you two turns to build up inf there before japan can reach it.  I then followed up with buiding an IC in Java after I reclaimed it from Japan.  This required lots of fleet combinations with the U.S. navy as well as considerably more contributions of U.S. money.  It does allow you to build up a sizeable enough force to recapture most if not all of your british colonial holdings and threaten Japans seizure of mainland asia and india.  I still beleive that my strategy would have worked well had not my Japanese opponent hit both Fighterbombers and long range aircraft, which entirely negated my fleets!!! :? :?

[Mach]

@spectre_04:

One strategy that worked well for me was building an IC in Australia on the Frist turn, thus giving you two turns to build up inf there before japan can reach it.  I then followed up with buiding an IC in Java after I reclaimed it from Japan.  This required lots of fleet combinations with the U.S. navy as well as considerably more contributions of U.S. money.  It does allow you to build up a sizeable enough force to recapture most if not all of your british colonial holdings and threaten Japans seizure of mainland asia and india.  I still beleive that my strategy would have worked well had not my Japanese opponent hit both Fighterbombers and long range aircraft, which entirely negated my fleets!!! :? :?

I guess it depends on J1 openers.  In the games I’ve played so far though (1941), Japan would be able to hit Austalia with 4 troops (Borneo/East Indies), two fighters; or 1 if the sz35 UK destroyer hit (sz37 carrier), BB (Philippines) and cruiser all on J2.

[bbrett3]

I started I topic like this a while go and ultimately came to these conclusions

Africa: Most of the countries have too small IPC values, are in danger of being captured by the Italians, or are too out of the way, also the Americans usually start to land men in Algeria turn 1

Middle East: IPC values are way too low to make an IC worth it

Australia: It serve as a decent Naval Base, its hard to mobilize land troops though……

India: Probably the best choice, Decent naval base, you can flood ground troops into mainland Asia, as long as you stay defensive B1 you can use China as a distraction, and start sending your tanks rollin’ through

[Uncle_Joe]

A Brit IC in South Africa coupled with a strong US Pacific presence can make life a merry hell for Japan. Add to her difficulty by sending a few Russian infantry into China and suddenly the ‘unstoppable’ Japan has a whole lot of problems to deal with. In turn, this relieves pressure on the British Empire and on Russia since Japan isnt gobbling up the backfield and threatening the 2-IPC territories east of Moscow.

Personally I think a SA IC even if ALL it does is help save Africa is worth it. And 2 tanks per round can really put the hurt on Italy in Africa, again saving Brit IPCs each turn. I’ve found that that factory eventually pays its own IPC cost off in saved territory in a few turns and thats not counting the hurt that inflicts on Italy or the potential to irritate Japan.

A Brit factory in India is a target for Japan IMO and most J1 moves I’ve seen played leave enough firepower to bear on India to take it (a costly attack, mind you) if the Brits build the IC. Australia is the same way - there is just no way to guarantee holding it long enough use it. The only safe spot is SA and I think its actually more useful than Australia would be since it helps with Africa as well as providing potential Pacific pressure.

I suppose if Russia wants to commit a LOT of infantry to defending India, the Brits might be able to get away with it, but it still a risky area IMO. Japan can bring an awful lot of firepower to bear quickly if its ever weakly guarded and that really cuts down on its utility IMO. And Russia without 4-5 extra infantry in the south is gonna feel mighty fragile for a while. Granted it will likely head off a lot of later Japanese pressure as well, but in the short term you might lose a lot more if Germany/Italy breaks in down south.

[Count_Zeppelin]

I comply with uncle joe.

The brit IC in south africa totally negates any italian attacks in africa and may even threaten the japanese. But you can also do without. I still like the african factory as it reduces the number of high cost units used in the african and asian theatre. The indian factory can only be built if russia starts sending units round one and that is a luxury russia normaly cannot afford. The australian factory is not as risky as the indian one - i still advocate against it. Thats 15 IPCs that commit the american.

[atarihuana]

@Flying:

I’ll have to look again but it seems if Japan wants to take India it can BUT they have to commit everything on turn 1 to set it up turn 2 don’t they? If they are all out for India they have to forget about other targets. I think it depends on Japans first turn whether or not it is wise to build an IC in India.

I have not played as Japan yet but it seems Australia is a better and easier target on turn 2. It is setup by the turn 1 attacks on Borneo and new Guinea.

funny you say that cuz i have found a set up J1 for india (even if russia sends troops) which involves burma (ofcourse) east indies, new guiniea, borneo kwangtung for 2nd NO.

it doesnt hit phillipines J1 (the fleet is sunk of course) and it doesnt hit … the Flying tigers. :mrgreen:
once british players sees this, it would be best to move his forces out to aid  china/ russia, which allows you to take australia and india, phillipines J2 ^^

[Croggyl]

I think an IC in South Africa should only be build if Germany doesn’t take EGY or conquer it with less then two tanks.
Otherwise following scenario is possible:

• GER take EGY with two tanks left
• UK build IC in SAfr
• ITA take Trans-Jordan with tank/inf, move two inf from LYB to EGY, land fighter there
• GER tank blitz to Italien East Africa (IEA), land bomber at EGY
• UK build two tanks and (a) move one inf to RHO or (b) stack both inf in SAfr
• ITA bridge inf/tank/fighter to RHO (kill any british troops there) and open the way for GER
• GER attack SAfr with two tanks and bomber
• if GER not take SAfr, UK build two more tanks (should be three or four tanks there now)
• ITA strikes with inf, tank, fig, cruiser, battleship
  Could be enough to take that IC.

Option:
JAP take East Indies at first turn with 2 inf, sink the uk ships before indian coast (sz 35) and land two fighter at CV at sz 37. Take Madagascar at turn two and strikes to SAfr before UK3 to kill any units left there (possibly take it) so that at worst case after UK3 only two tanks are there.
The two japanese fighters could land at IEA at JAP2 to free that CV for the pacific theatre.

Disadvantages:

• german bomber is missing at european theatre for four turns
• UK could re-attack EGY with two inf and bomber and kill german tank(s)
• ITA must take Trans-Jordan at ITA1 to open suez channel
• (most of) italien navy is out of position for Mediterranian Sea after ITA3
• JAP have to bring CV/fighters that may needed at pacific theatre
• UK could bring australien troops via Cape Horn and take SAfr back at UK3; ITA may not have enough troops to take SAfr again

I’ve seen that scenario (without JAP) in my last game. GER take EGY with art and two tanks, uk build SAfr IC, GER blitz to IEA, UK stacks two inf at RHO, ITA clear RHO, UK build two inf, GER take SAfr.

[I like Ike]

Just out of curiosity.  Has anyone tried the strat of buying an IC in India for UK on turn one then placing 3 subs there on turn 2?

Haven’t tried it yet but I thought it may be an interesting twist to help keep Japan from island hopping and reaching pacific NO’s.  My thought (brief as it may be lol) was that the 3 subs could keep Japan from sending unescorted transports all over the pacific and force them into “wasting” money on surface warships (particularly destroyers).  This in turn could also help slow down Japans “bulking up of land units” for the Asian invasion.  And giving the Indian IC some much needed time to build land units and preserve the IC……

Any thoughts on this or am I just out of my mind? :-D

[bbrett3]

@I:

Just out of curiosity.  Has anyone tried the strat of buying an IC in India for UK on turn one then placing 3 subs there on turn 2?

Haven’t tried it yet but I thought it may be an interesting twist to help keep Japan from island hopping and reaching pacific NO’s.  My thought (brief as it may be lol) was that the 3 subs could keep Japan from sending unescorted transports all over the pacific and force them into “wasting” money on surface warships (particularly destroyers).  This in turn could also help slow down Japans “bulking up of land units” for the Asian invasion.  And giving the Indian IC some much needed time to build land units and preserve the IC……

Any thoughts on this or am I just out of my mind? :

that might work, but then you would immediately lose the IC to Japanese ground troops.  If yo want to start making ships out of the Indian IC you would first need to secure most of mainland Asia

[I like Ike]

@bbrett3:

@I:

Just out of curiosity.  Has anyone tried the strat of buying an IC in India for UK on turn one then placing 3 subs there on turn 2?

Haven’t tried it yet but I thought it may be an interesting twist to help keep Japan from island hopping and reaching pacific NO’s.  My thought (brief as it may be lol) was that the 3 subs could keep Japan from sending unescorted transports all over the pacific and force them into “wasting” money on surface warships (particularly destroyers).  This in turn could also help slow down Japans “bulking up of land units” for the Asian invasion.  And giving the Indian IC some much needed time to build land units and preserve the IC……

Any thoughts on this or am I just out of my mind? :

that might work, but then you would immediately lose the IC to Japanese ground troops.  If yo want to start making ships out of the Indian IC you would first need to secure most of mainland Asia

OK play tested this a couple of times and it didn’t turn out well.  If the Japan player focuses primarily on the Northern Asian front then the IC stands a chance of surviving and helping Asia in later rounds.  But if the Japan player focuses primarily on the Southern Asian front (which IMO should be done for J1 & J2) then the complex doesn’t stand a chance.  By J3, Japan now has a nice new complex and Japan can put pressure on Russia from the North and South.

[Unknown Soldier]

Any other thoughts on a South Africa IC?

I agree that this is probably the only viable IC if you’re playing experienced players, for the reasons you point out. Honestly I have no idea how people are building Indian ICs, for example. This just simply cannot work if Japan has any clue. The Australian IC could be viable in some games, depending on the J1 opening moves. 2 figs and a bmr from the US reinforce, and the DD in sz41 blocks the transports in the Philippines sz from hitting on J2, giving you time to build and get a couple more fighters down there. The problem is, it’s really not all that useful even if you can hold it. Unlike the Indian IC, you can’t really threaten Japanese territory by building tanks, and Japan can simply ignore you for the most part if they want, whereas they CANNOT ignore an IC in India.

I’ve only seen the S. Africa IC a couple times, but in both cases Italy eventually overwhelmed it. You really need US help in Africa immediately if your going to do it, I think.

[Uncle_Joe]

I like an IC in South Africa.

You can usually extricate your Australian fleet and send it to South Africa as well. From there, drop a CV and a plane or even just a few DDs/CAs and you are business peeing in Japan’s pool and threatening to take back the DEI. Its a fairly minimal investment, but it can cause Japan major headaches (assuming the US is playing in the Pacific, which I consider required of the Allies).

So, IMO, a factory in SA does the most important things for Britain.

1. It helps retain control of Africa (2 tanks a turn is enough to make it very hard for Italy to take Africa, especially with a minor US/Brit ‘Operation Torch’).

2. Helps retain or retake Brit possession in Asia. Japan simply cant split her fleet effectively enough to deal with the US and keep the Brits pinned (unless they forgo a KO on China and/or attacking Russia, both of which I think are bad ideas).

Currently I havent seen a GOOD answer to a Brit IC in SA. Three games out of three, the Allies have won with that strat. I have yet to have fight against it yet. Twice I was Britain using it, and once I was the US and the UK player and I made a mess out of Japan.

I highly recommend trying it in most ‘standard’ games. If the Germans try something silly and starting BB survives (or both the CA/DD in Gib), then I’d prolly go with a more ‘traditional’ Brit game. But barring that, drop the IC in SA and then start creating ‘harassment’ forces in England as well. Generally I’ve found that the income I save by not losing Africa and/or recapturing at least one of the DEI area is enough to pay for the units being produced at the factory so its not like it really slows you down in your efforts to land on the Continent.