.



  • .



  • I don’t see any cons in that… Unless you lose it to the Japanese. 3 tanks at a time is the way to go.



  • If Japan plays right, the IC will fall. That was the big con in revised, don’t know if it’s still this way in 1942.



  • If you really want to pull it off, you have to totally commit to it. Kill the Jap transport with the Indian des. Invade Ngu with 2 inf from Aus, invade Bor with 2 inf from ind, put the indian fighter on the hawaii carrier, move all inf in Per and Trj towards Ind,  put a British bomber in Nov or Sin. Depending on the battles of Borneo and Ngu, put the australian sub in SZ 47 or 45, put the Indian aircraft carrier in SZ 36 or 49 (to block any J1 reconquering of Borneo). Make sure you put 6 russian inf in Bry, and maybe buy a russian bomber to invade Manchuria with the 6 inf + bmr in R2.

    The whole goal of this setup is to counter anything the Japanese player tries. If japan tries to kill off a lot of the British fleet, plus Hawaii and Chi, it will be very vulnerable to American (pacific), Russian (Manchuria) and British (sub+bmr) counters. If Japan concentrates it’s forces leaving few weak spots, a considerable part of the UK navy survives, and will annoy the Japanese for a long time, giving time to the IC’s to produce units.

    The British bomber in Nov or Sin will hinder Japanese fleet builds, the spread out British fleet will cause serious headaches to the Japanese, resulting in probably at least a submarine surviving, combined with the british bomber in Sin, this is already something to take into account, the reinforced Hawaiian fleet is less tempting to attack because a counter on A1 is more likely.

    Send UK fighters to Cau when possible, to defend USSR and threaten Fic. Build an IC in Ind, maybe even Sinkiang (if Japan pulls a complete fleet build with little transports J1). Build some extra arm with USSR in Cau to quickly reinforce Ind or Sin when needed.

    Even against an experienced player, this is worth a try. The one big drawback: it’s dice heavy. Bad dice will ruin this, good dice make this a genious opening (winning both Ngu and Bor really hurts Jap).


  • '16 '15 '10

    Holkann, if you want to play an India IC, then instead of Borneo I think you have to go for Egypt on UK1, and attack the med fleet on R2.  Assuming USA is going full-bore after Japan (otherwise why build the India factory…), then Allies will need the Africa IPCs…if Germany gets them then that’s 10-11 tanks a turn headed for Moscow.

    I’ve tried the IIC against a wide variety of opposition and so far the trouble is UK has a harder time getting troops into Northern Europe to help Russia then they did in Revised.  Japan’s initial position is weaker and their fleet dies quicker then in Revised, but Germany’s initial position is comparatively stronger.

    A turn 2 IIC, in cases where USA is fully committed to the Pacific and UK gets favorable results in Africa, might be worth a look.


  • '16 '15 '10

    @Cromwell_Dude:

    So, now the burden is left to the USA.   A KGF stops the Axis onslaught, however, KGF seems too easy for experienced players.

    There is no ‘easy’ Allied strategy….

    As for India, below is a write-up on how to open an IIC strategy in the Revised game–many of those principles apply to AA42

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15579.0

    The major differences are Africa (no Africa bids, so Allies should counter Egy instead of conceding Africa) and the difficulty the UK has taking Norway and/or dumping troops into the Kar/Arch region.  Also, it’s probably more important for Russia to get the Med fleet then to counter China on R2.

    I don’t recommend the IIC as a winning strategy for 42, but it does make for a fun game.



  • An IC on India is too risky. It should most assuredly fall. I usually cede India and try for an IC in Sinkiang, depending on what Japan does. But it all truly depends on what your opponent does.



  • To keep pressure on Japan, build an IC in India for the U.K. and an IC in Sinkiang for America. Thats 5 tanks at a time, bring over fighters to defend/attack when needed. That will keep them contained for the time being and possibily kick them out of mainland Asia.



  • only if you send in every unit possible


  • 2007 AAR League

    KGF and KJF are easy compared to forcing the USA to fight on two theatres, both Atlantic and Pacific.

    Well it´s not “harder” its in most cases just plain stupid.

    If you have a plan sure otherwise there is no sense in doing that. If you doubt me we can play a couple of games if you like where you play allies and divide US troops and im certain you will lose a lot of games.



  • DON’T DO THE IC IN INDIA ON TURNS 1 OR 2 BECAUSE JAPAN WILL INVADE INDIA



  • If putting an IC in India, I think the best strategy is to not compound an error.  I would suggest an attack, with everything against FIC.  That’s 3 inf 1 ftr and a bombardment vs 2 inf 1 ftr.  You have only a 60 percent chance, but over 2/3 of a chance of clearing the square.  That’s most of Japans counter attack troops, and most importantly his only land forces, provided you took out his transport with the carrier.

    If this battle goes horrible, I would forgo the factory in India and instead place it in Safrica.  Using it to build a redoubt to keep the axis in Africa busy.  If it goes well you guarantee holding the India, lower the attack troops against China, and you make another 3IPC’s from FIC.

    That being said, I don’t think it is a winning strategy.  I would prefer the IC in Safrica and a counter on Egypt UK1.


  • 2007 AAR League

    It is somewhat viable to put ic on Australia, pull fleet to sz29 and put down BB+sub for 2 rounds get a US build in pacific and go joint island hoping.



  • @Nix:

    It is somewhat viable to put ic on Australia, pull fleet to sz29 and put down BB+sub for 2 rounds get a US build in pacific and go joint island hoping.

    Do you mean 39?


  • '10

    @JimmyHat:

    If putting an IC in India, I think the best strategy is to not compound an error.  I would suggest an attack, with everything against FIC.  That’s 3 inf 1 ftr and a bombardment vs 2 inf 1 ftr.  You have only a 60 percent chance, but over 2/3 of a chance of clearing the square.  That’s most of Japans counter attack troops, and most importantly his only land forces, provided you took out his transport with the carrier.

    If this battle goes horrible, I would forgo the factory in India and instead place it in Safrica.  Using it to build a redoubt to keep the axis in Africa busy.  If it goes well you guarantee holding the India, lower the attack troops against China, and you make another 3IPC’s from FIC.

    That being said, I don’t think it is a winning strategy.  I would prefer the IC in Safrica and a counter on Egypt UK1.

    I thinks that’s your best chance if your thinking about a UK1 IC. Depending upon rolls, buys and location of attacks if the Japanese have no ground forces near india on turn 2 it might be worth it.



  • I doubt very much that an IC on round 2 is a good idea.  At that point just be glad you can and are holding India, and concentrate on Germany.  The point about getting it out there early is for the early production.  By round 2 UK should already have another direction that it is concentrating, most likely the Atlantic.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Nix:

    It is somewhat viable to put ic on Australia, pull fleet to sz29 and put down BB+sub for 2 rounds get a US build in pacific and go joint island hoping.

    Do you mean 39?

    Nope actually do mean sz29 with india fleet, australia fleet stays put, join in sz 39 with a Naval build on UK2



  • If J dedicates enough resources, they can roll the IC by J2 or J3 at worst, and there is no way for the Allies to retake it, unless enough Russians are stationed in Persia for a counter.

    UK imho should’n build IC nowhere (not untill UK4 or 5), only maybe in SA in UK3 if the Germans still have a foothold in Africa by G3 and UK can’t launch a serious counterattack.


  • 2007 AAR League

    So Advosan your thoughts on Australian IC?



  • @Nix:

    So Advosan your thoughts on Australian IC?

    Even if considered relatively safer, an Australian IC needs resourses to become dangerous, resourses that the UK simply doesn t have. My IC choises are either EC or NOR or AES, but always on a latter game phase, never UK1…



  • I agree about the Aus IC, unless you think the J player would over-react to it, and divert more resources to counter it than necessary, thereby gaining a turn or so at the cost of 15 IC.

    What are the thoughts about an IC in AE around UK4-5? That seems to me to be the best UK location if you can spare the IPCs: it threatens SE, Bal, Ukr, Ind (from Sz34); can resupply Cau, Per; and deter J from retaking Africa.



  • @dustwhit:

    I agree about the Aus IC, unless you think the J player would over-react to it, and divert more resources to counter it than necessary, thereby gaining a turn or so at the cost of 15 IC.

    What are the thoughts about an IC in AE around UK4-5? That seems to me to be the best UK location if you can spare the IPCs: it threatens SE, Bal, Ukr, Ind (from Sz34); can resupply Cau, Per; and deter J from retaking Africa.

    If the Japanese take over an AUS IC, africa is as good as gone for the Allies. Japan will be able to launch an immediate assault in MAD and they will just keep on coming, landing exactly where the Allies can’t reach, south africa.

    I agree with the AES IC. If the UK has the resources to spare (that is more than 32 IPC/round) by UK4, an AES IC is dangerous for the reasons you said for the Axis, given that NOR might just not be safe enough for the British to set an assisting production line there. Even if a SE landing is not possible, Japan will definitely feel the heat in FIC and continental Asia in general. Not to mention that you can take Japan’s soft belly (EIN and BOR) by surprise, totally crippling the Empire’s war efforts…The options of an AES IC are pretty much endless.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Thing is there is no way Japan can take Aus IC if UK1 puts one there and sens India fleet to SZ29 and UK reunits fleet SZ29 to australia fleet, and puts down either a carrier+fig or battleship+destroyer. This coupled with an initial US build and japan is in full turtle mode.

    Then UK2 Uk builds mostly in Europe to put pressure on Germany. US go island hopping.



  • @Nix:

    Thing is there is no way Japan can take Aus IC if UK1 puts one there and sens India fleet to SZ29 and UK reunits fleet SZ29 to australia fleet, and puts down either a carrier+fig or battleship+destroyer. This coupled with an initial US build and japan is in full turtle mode.

    Then UK2 Uk builds mostly in Europe to put pressure on Germany. US go island hopping.

    Imho, the SZ29 coglomerate will only end up in a total destruction for the UK Indian-Pacific navy. The Japanese can strike with a formidable battlegroup of 1 BB, 1 AC and 2 fgt that will leave none alive, maybe only the SS if it submerges.
    Plus, the British have a million more importand things to do to the Atlantic with an AC+fgt or a BB+DD than to play hide and seek with the Japanese in the South Pacific. UK simply cannot afford to dedicate those UK1 (build IC) and UK2 (buy BB, DD or w/e) resources against Japan; Germany will be left unchecked and will inevitably crush Russia. True, Japan will probably turtle, but this will be without any significance if Germany crushes Russia, an inescapeable reality unless the UK helps them anyway they can… 
    UK is racing against time to build up in the Atlantic and start relieving Russia (ARC, KAR, NOR, maybe even WE and EE). And don t forget, an AUS IC means that you will have to support it in EVERY round, or it will be exposed.
    Truth be told, any UK1 IC (except  maybe an EC IC…) is a safe trap for the Allies. Undersupported, remote and helpless, it will be a matter of time untill it becomes an Axis instrument.



  • @Advosan:

    Imho, the SZ29 coglomerate will only end up in a total destruction for the UK Indian-Pacific navy. … …don t forget, an AUS IC means that you will have to support it in EVERY round, or it will be exposed. … …
    Truth be told, any UK1 IC (except  maybe an EC IC…) is a safe trap for the Allies. Undersupported, remote and helpless, it will be a matter of time untill it becomes an Axis instrument.

    I think that makes a lot of sense, Advosan. Nix’s thoughts would make for an interesting play when you’re wanting to mix things up though.

    I’m intrigued about an IC on EC. I don’t see how that is an advantage for the UK. :?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

69
Online

14.2k
Users

34.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts