• .


  • 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…

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 7
  • 3
  • 3
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
  • 5
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts