The UK in the Pacific

[bbrett3]

IC in India: ensures instant ground pressure on japan as well as a decent naval base, it can be devastating if lost

IC in Australia: lets you flank the japanese navy and unite with the american fleet, hard to use ground troops though….

IC i Canada: Only worth it if:
A) you reeeally don’t wanna lose your IC
B)the japs are going all out on alaska and california

Do nothing: keeps pressure on the germans, US might get overwhelmed

Push through ME: lets you use spare troops in North Africa and the Med. , might be a very small force though…

[Black_Elk]

I think its annoying that the Russians are always required to defend India for the British. Revised was essentially the same way, usually requiring 2 inf and at least 3 tanks in range out Caucasus, to prevent the all out rush by Japan.

It seems like we have basically the same pattern going on here, at least in 41. The ‘Rush’ might take another round, which buys the British 3 more tanks, but the Russian commitment makes it just that much easier for Germany to put early pressure on Moscow. Right now I’m going to have to vote No to the India complex.

In 42 the IC is a bit more viable, still pretty costly though.

[Danger Mouse]

I think that an IC in Australia with an American player who is taking an active role in the Pacific would give Japan more to think about than blind expansion into Asia.  A combined fleet between the two means that both the UK an the US can threaten Japan without expending all of their IPC’s on a KJF strategy.  If time is truly the Allies friend then slowing down Japans expansion in anyway is a good thing.

[rockrobinoff]

@Danger:

I think that an IC in Australia with an American player who is taking an active role in the Pacific would give Japan more to think about than blind expansion into Asia.  A combined fleet between the two means that both the UK an the US can threaten Japan without expending all of their IPC’s on a KJF strategy.  If time is truly the Allies friend then slowing down Japans expansion in anyway is a good thing.

This might be true, then again, it is all the less pressure that is put on Germany, which means all the more pressure that Germany can put on Russia, which means that Japan needs fewer guys to take down Russia.

Speaking in such generalizations is rarely useful.

[Heavy Deed]

This might be true, then again, it is all the less pressure that is put on Germany, which means all the more pressure that Germany can put on Russia, which means that Japan needs fewer guys to take down Russia.

Speaking in such generalizations is rarely useful.

So its just KGF 100% of the time?  zzzzzzz…

[rockrobinoff]

@Heavy:

So its just KGF 100% of the time?  zzzzzzz…

Maybe? I dunno. I am merely contending that putting presssure on Japan does not automaticaly = good.

[tin_snips]

they’re all valid points. i think it just comes down to your own individual games. most of us are experiences enough to know if and when placing an IC is worthwhile. you just have to watch what the enemy does closely

i’ve seen games where it was worth UK building an IC in India, and i’ve seen games where it was a bloody terrible idea

[bbrett3]

@tin_snips:

they’re all valid points. i think it just comes down to your own individual games. most of us are experiences enough to know if and when placing an IC is worthwhile. you just have to watch what the enemy does closely

i’ve seen games where it was worth UK building an IC in India, and i’ve seen games where it was a bloody terrible idea

i gotta  agree with u, it all depends on how japan wants to play their game, there is no end-all-be-all perfect strategy

[TG Moses VI]

they’re all valid points. i think it just comes down to your own individual games. most of us are experiences enough to know if and when placing an IC is worthwhile. you just have to watch what the enemy does closely

i’ve seen games where it was worth UK building an IC in India, and i’ve seen games where it was a bloody terrible idea

Seconded.  There is no hard and fast answer that applies to any game state – especially when you’re the Allies.

[MP84]

Would anyone say though, that is in fact a good idea to let Japan take India? I mean really. The initial UK setup in India is not good enough to last over the span of even a few turns if Japan is funneling forces in. You can say that building an IC there is not a good idea, but what is the alternative? An IC in Australia? The Imperial Navy is far to strong to pretend that you can send your 2 inf/1 tank 1 infantry a turn over to SE Asia. I think that the UK is best used by causing problems in North Africa, strat bombing Germany, harassing the Japanese in the Pacific, and massing for Overlord. I just dont see a viable alternative to an IC in India. It is something that can be done in turn 2 (after watching Japans turn one) that can have an immediate impact on that theatre. It is either that, or basically admit that you wont have a say in the Pacific.

I guess I am a frustrated player who’s is tired of the watching the UK player do nothing(in most games i have seen). Sitting there building 10 infantry a turn, and fighting a delaying action in Egypt is not an effective use of the difficult to use, yet profitable UK.

[Guest]

Bah.  Ignore Japan, rush Berlin with everything you get, and by the time Japan reaches Moscow, Berlin will be down.  Same old game.

Japan is 6 land territories and 1 sea zone away from Moscow.  So basically, any force built in Japan can reach Moscow in 6 rounds.  So once Japan builds up a large amount of land units, the game basically has a timer.  The Allies have 5 rounds until Russia must retreat and fight war against Japan.  If, in those 5 rounds, the Allies can do enough damage to the Axis so that Russia can concentrate purely on Japan, Russia should be able to hold of Japan for a few more rounds, at the least.

Once Japan builds up an epic land force, the Allies have about 7 rounds to take Berlin.  If they do, they win.  If not, they lose.

[Black_Elk]

I think the new turn (with J going before UK in both scenarios) order really works against a British Factory purchase.

An Aussie IC seems doable, but I don’t know, its still feels pretty shabby as an island at only 2 ipc. I mean if you have to buy a transport, that’s only one other ground unit in the first turn. Unlike India or S. Africa where you can eventually get those tanks to Russia, Australia requires you to transport everything. It seems safer in 42 than 41 probably (41 feels risky to me, unless your transporting units from India to Australia in the first round), but in 1942 you have the issue of no starting fleet in sea zone 42, which make the whole investment seem a lot less worthwhile.

If the UK was meant to have a second Factory they should have built the Colonial Garrison into the game. With all the other rules floating around, it would have been relatively simple by comparison. Its really the hefty price tag at 15 ipcs that kills it for me. If it was one extra factory for free, or all factories were only 12 ipcs, things would probably work out better.