.

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.

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. :?

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.

Thus us incorrect.

If you look at map you see that sz29 is 3 spaces away from SZ37 so only 2 figs can attack.

I also want to add that the additional IPC uk and US will have from Island hoping in japans territories should tip the initial lack of ipc into europe.

For example, india won´t be taken anytime soon by japan, africa is safer etc.

@dustwhit:

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

Allow me to elaborate on this one. UK 's primary-by far- target is to press hard G on Europe. By the time UK has recreated a strong atlantic fleet they can begin assaulting Europe. The optimum assault package is a 32-cost 4 inf 4 arm, and the question is what to do with any additional IPC. Obviously, another IC is needed to divert some IPC, increase production and escalate the pressure. Three places are candidates for this “secondary” production line: AES, NOR and EC. NOR is the best choise, with land borders with Europe and 3 units per turn is the optimum spot; problem is that usually it is not safe. Second candidate, AES. Relatively safer than NOR, but with lesser building options (practically only bmb, unless you can spare a Mediterranean fleet…). Third option is EC. With 3 units per turn and at supreme safety, you can pop additional land units and immediately land them on NOR if you can spare a couple of TTs, or have NOR within bombing range. My first choice is NOR, my second AES, but if I have not completely pacified Japan, I prefer EC.

@Nix:

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.

Thus us incorrect.

If you look at map you see that sz29 is 3 spaces away from SZ37 so only 2 figs can attack.

You are right, UK1 can conglomerate its indian-pacific fleet only in SZ30, not 29. And in SZ30, UK fleet is within range of the japanese EIN armada. If you ever want to try the AUS IC strat we can set up a match and see how it works! :-)

Challenge accepted =)

And i don´t join the navy untill UK round 2

So SZ29 will be the go to place in UK1

@Nix:

So SZ29 will be the go to place in UK1

Imho UK1 has so many things to do with tha India/Oceania fleet than to hide it.

1. Destroy the unescorted Japanese TT.
2. Counter AES.
3. Position SS to threated Japanese unescorted TT’s.
4. Invade FIC.
5. Invade BOR.
6. Reinforce the 6 R inf in BUR.
7. Invade GUI.
   8 ) Attack G Med fleet.
   9 ) Escort ANZAC to Africa via Cape Horn.
8. Escort ANZAC to Africa via southern Indian Ocean.
   It would be a good thing to keep that fleet safe in SZ29, but still UK (and the Allies in general) have to do more than sit tight and wait for mighty America to KGF so that everyone can go home happy and safe :-)

So i hope you download aBattlemap so we can try it out. You might be right but in revised the Aussie IC strat worked very good often because Japanesse player hadn´t faced it much at all, thus didn´t know wtf to do :)

Laways good to not be predictable =)

It’s tricky, since a good Japan player will whomp all over the Pacific anyways.  What you need to do is rob Germany of Africa and place the IC at a spot that can’t easily be taken out.

The optimal place to put the IC is actually Egypt as it properly reinforces Russia, puts pressure on the Med, makes a giant choke-point for Africa.  The U.K. is now in range of Europe on both sides, blocks the Suez forever, and can send units to Russia easier, because they don’t have to be stacked on defense(can’t hold India forever anyways).

But you will need U.S. support, so you might have to wait until turn 2 to place it unless the German med fleet is badly beaten.    Russia can also of course send air cover for it if you decide to build it on turn 1.  If the U.S. player sends their bomber there as well, they can later on do effortless strategic bombing of Italy as well and be well within range of Europe.  It’s also the optimal place to use U.S. and U.K. forces to do the famous 1-2-3 punch vs Eastern Europe. Two turns later, U.S. forces will have a large stack of units there and it’s never being taken down.

With that in place, the U.S. job is much easier and they can concentrate solely upon Japan and Germany proper.  Forcing Germany to actually fight a war in/reinforce the Med. is all you need to do to cripple its focus on Russia.

Note - the counter to the U.S. and to divert its attention is to actually take Hawaii with troops(Central America is now in range - and the U.S. has to not leave any openings).  This game is highly dependent upon dividing your enemy’s focus to multiple fronts.  If Japan doesn’t do at least this and the U.S. can focus entirely upon Europe, it’s over for the Axis.

That’s an interesting take on the IC in egypt, and I agree that in some ways leaving the German fleet alive is a benefit to the allies because it siphons strength away from the main front in Russia.  That being said, Africa holds more value strategically than its IPC’s would suggest, I would think that a dedicated axis player would set up a 1-2 on that factory if you were to leave the german fleet alive.

Provided you instead destroy the German fleet as soon as possible, how do you intend to defend the Egyptian coast against a Jap player who will use his fleet in the Indian Ocean?  I think you have to devise a way to hold Japan in the pacific, even perhaps a small US fleet build to bait them.

as Japan, if I saw UK build IC on Aus and move their fleet to sz29, I would place Japan EIN fleet in sz30 next to the UK fleet. this would prevent the UK fleet from heading towards Aus. If I see US build Pacific fleet, then J2 would involve attacking any UK fleet in range while also building enough navy at Japan (combined with whatever I sent to Pearl) to counter US pacific fleet. although this might distract Japan from Asia a little bit, it also wastes time for allies to support russia. unless this becomes a full-out KJF strategy, the delay seems to hurt allies more than it hurts japan’s road to moscow.

UK IC in egypt also doesn’t seem efficient, it can only produce 2 units and i doubt UK would be making enough IPC to produce anything other than 2 men or maybe 1 tank, 1 man, assuming 4 men, 4 art produced in London. those 2 men would take 4 turns to get to russia. and by then caucasus will probably belong to germany anyway.

India as mentioned by everyone would take too many resources to defend and would become free factory for Japan soon enough.

i think NOR is the only place worth placing an IC; if it isn’t safe, you should wait until it is.

Wait…
I just posted on the 1942 FAQ thread.

I read the rulebook, it looks like subs can stall. (move in non combat to a sz with unloaded enemy transports).
Anyone who ever played AA Pacific (old one) knows that there, stalling is the only little hope against an india crush.

Moreover here subs can’t be picked by air units!

Does anyone know about this? I can’t see any comment about sub stalling in 1942.
If it is allowed (as it appears to be on rulebook) IC in India may be protected ! or at least force japan to spend and risk more

@SrFinn:

Wait…
I just posted on the 1942 FAQ thread.

I read the rulebook, it looks like subs can stall. (move in non combat to a sz with unloaded enemy transports).
Anyone who ever played AA Pacific (old one) knows that there, stalling is the only little hope against an india crush.

Moreover here subs can’t be picked by air units!

Does anyone know about this? I can’t see any comment about sub stalling in 1942.
If it is allowed (as it appears to be on rulebook) IC in India may be protected ! or at least force japan to spend and risk more

Subs can’t stall, period. Interpret like this: on your turn, any seazone that contains only enemy subs and/or transports can be treated like there is no enemy unit at all. Enemy subs and transports never hinder any of your movement.

The reason for this is that the seazone s not considered hostile.

We used to do it but we abandoned that strat a long time ago. It’s too much of a drain on allied resources and it doesn’t slow Japan down at all. It gives them a factory in fact.

Re:  Australia IC:

The Japs want to put ground units into Asia anyways.  It’s my opinion that building up at India just gives the Japs a target of opportunity.  If India started with three more infantry on it, I think things might be different, but we’re not dealing with hypotheticals here.

==

An Australian IC is such a different topic, I think a separate thread should be created for it.

@Nix:

I also want to add that the additional IPC uk and US will have from Island hoping in japans territories should tip the initial lack of ipc into europe.

For example, india won´t be taken anytime soon by japan, africa is safer etc.

You’re saying the Allies show their plan on UK 1, when they drop Australia IC.  I take it that it is a given that an Australian IC is a strict KJF plan.  Anything else, I think, is just an expensive distraction.

Am I right in saying this?

@Plekto:

…What you need to do is rob Germany of Africa and place the IC at a spot that can’t easily be taken out.
The optimal place to put the IC is actually Egypt…
But you will need U.S. support, so you might have to wait until turn 2 to place it unless the German med fleet is badly beaten…
Russia can also of course send air cover for it if you decide to build it on turn 1.

Do I understand correctly that you’re proposing reclaiming Africa from Germany, beating up the German Med fleet, and putting an IC in Anglo-Egypt by turn 2?  And that you’re proposing sending a Russian fighter to Anglo-Egypt on R1?  (Giving Germany slightly better odds on a two-territory R1 attack?)

Response:  I pick up infantry and tank from Southern Europe, plus Libya infantry and tank, plus bomber, and probably 2 fighters.  This, versus infantry, tank, and two fighters.  My battleship must win versus your destroyer, but those are good odds.  You never get the Anglo-Egypt IC up, and I kill a precious Russian fighter, while keepipng most of or all of my air, probably leaving a tank ready to blitz through Africa.  Russian fighters are like gold in my opinion; they allow Russia to trade territories without committing ground forces to hold the territory (since the Germans usually take the territory right back, destroying any Russian forces there.)

Sure, this means the UK battleship and transports may survive, but Russian fighters are SOLID GOLD IMHO.

Alternative, I only have 1 fighter, and you overcommitted in Ukraine.  I still attack Anglo-Egypt, with slightly worse odds, but am compensated by obliterating Russian tanks in Ukraine.  This is an even better scenario for Germany.

Last alternative, you undercommitted to a Ukraine attack, lucked out, and won big.  Which just goes to show that in war, it’s better to be lucky than smart/valorous/other adjective.

I’m still curious as to how you intend to beat up the German Med fleet.  If Anglo-Egypt holds, yes, I can see the Indian fleet and the Anglo-Egypt fighter making a good case against the German Med fleet.  I just don’t think Anglo-Egypt should ever last past G1, though.