• 2007 AAR League

    I’ve been trying to settle on opening moves with the British and trying different things as of late and wanted to get opinions.

    A few of the questions I’ve been struggling with are:

    1. Do I use the India transport/infantry to attack Borneo or reinforce Africa?  If not, and I leave the British infantry in India for defense, is it just best to evacuate the carrier and transport to the west (possibly picking up inf from Per/T-J to reinforce Africa)?
    2. What’s the best use of the India fighter?  I have used the fighter that starts on the carrier to hit the German BB and transport with the bomber from London.  Although there is a fair chance I could lose both units, it is nice not to have to worry about the Germans reinforcing Africa.  If not, I have sometimes used the carrier/ftr to rendezvous with the Australian sub/transport en route to a reinforcement of Africa with Australian infantry.  I have also used it to reinforce the American carrier at Pearl Harbor.  I have never really been sold on a heavy defense of India, so I would prefer to do something with the ftr rather then leave it there for defense.

    Thanks for the help.


  • You can hit the Japanese transport off Kwangtung.  You then have to choose between landing in China or back on your carrier, which ties your carrier to India where it is easy pickings for the Japs.  If you go this route, I would probably evacuate the British navy and land in China. I’ve done this a few times and I don’t recall how the games worked out, but it did actually slow Japan down quite a bit more than it would seem.  Any time you can buy Russia is worth considering.


  • Here’s an idea, what if Britain opened by building an IC in India, using the rest of her money on infantry back home, and then built a decent navy in the pacific on turn two, effective for the third round. Is this feasible? This could be done with landings in Norway during the Pacific focus.


  • An IC in India is usually a bad idea. It requires aid from Russia, who can’t afford to spend it and it is easily taken by Japan. Then they get a free IC, and UK loses 15 IPCs.


  • I just started a new game tonight and attacked the Japanese transport successfully and landed the plane in China.  I then (for the first time ever) parked the Brit navy off the west coast of Australia, landed the AA gun and brought the sub and transport from underneath Australia up to bolster my navy.

    My adversary took the bait and attacked with the Japanese naval force from SZ 37 and he actually lost the battle very badly, which completely sets up a great kill Japan First strategy for America.

    We played 3 rounds before breaking for the night, but America is already parked off of Wake with a sizeable navy with a minor force occupying Solomons.  Next turn one of those forces will be able to seize Borneo and begin putting up a factory.

    My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.


  • @hamiltmc:

    My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.

    You got extremely lucky. If the fighter from Egypt has survived G1 and joins the UK fleet, Japan still has 86% odds of winning if it attacks with 4 fighters, 1 carrier and 1 battleship. Otherwise Japanese odds are 98%.


  • Wow, I may try this. I find he British pacific situation fascinating. I think there a several options available, but all require very good dice rolls.


  • @Hobbes:

    @hamiltmc:

    My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.

    You got extremely lucky. If the fighter from Egypt has survived G1 and joins the UK fleet, Japan still has 86% odds of winning if it attacks with 4 fighters, 1 carrier and 1 battleship. Otherwise Japanese odds are 98%.

    I got lucky, that is for sure.  But he only brought the naval forces in zone 37, went for pearl harbor with the rest and kept any land based fighters deployed against China.

    I fully expected to lose the battle when I first made the move, but wanted to weaken his navy for America’s kill Japan first strategy and to slow his conquest of Asia.  Still, truth be told, it was also about mixing things up and seeing what happened. I play this guy like twice a month and wanted to see a new dynamic.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    I agree Cromwell. I play safe and build in SA, as I hate the Germans running amok in what is my bread and butter income.
    If Japan comes at you like he should, you can’t hold India and then gifting him an IC drives me wild!


  • @Hobbes:

    @hamiltmc:

    My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.

    You got extremely lucky. If the fighter from Egypt has survived G1 and joins the UK fleet, Japan still has 86% odds of winning if it attacks with 4 fighters, 1 carrier and 1 battleship. Otherwise Japanese odds are 98%.

    Hobbes, I recently posted a new thread with a slight variant of this strategy. I would love to get your opinion on the concept:

    Possible Russian/UK Opening
    axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35880.0

    With this strategy, the Japanese only have a 32% chance to eliminate the combined UK fleet in SZ 30 unless they choose to greatly diminish (or forgo altogether) their J1 Pearl Harbor attack.  What do you think?


  • @Cromwell_Dude:

    I still debate the whole British IC on India with myself. With that said, over half the time, it never works out well.

    I have had mixed feelings about an Indian IC, as well.  I used to employ the strategy often, but I usually avoid it nowadays.  However, even if the IC should happen to fall into Japanese hands, that doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that it was a bad strategy to pursue.  Japan may be delayed from pushing toward Moscow by their pursuit of capturing and holding India. This may give Russia a bit of breathing room for a bit longer.  That said, I usually prefer to invest UK’s wealth into liberating/securing Africa and bringing the fight to Germany ASAP via the Atlantic theater.


  • Good post. I like it very much


  • Flying the fighter to the US Carrier? Ooh, never actually considered that.

    Although, I think no matter what you do, you must kill the defenseless Japanese transport, slowing their onslaught into Asia.
    I tried Borneo, but in all honesty, the UK can’t hold it, so is it going to work in the long term?

    I am thinking about this for my next game…

    • Amphibious assault into French Indo-China with 3 infantry & fighter & cruiser bombard.
    • Carrier destroys transport.
    • Fighter lands in China, optionally with the one from Russia for 2 infantry & 3 fighter defense.
    • US factory in Sianking.

    In our games, we are in a trend where the US builds a factory in Sianking with Russian (two inf.) support, which is making the games more even as it stops the Japanese steamroll to Moscow.
    I am sure three planes in China will be taken as a sure sign of a US factory in Sianking.
    Even if the amphibious fails, wiping out the French-Indo infantry leaves Japan with 2 fewer men to attack China. Manchuria needs some defense from the Russians, and they need something to attack French-Indo, if the attack was successful.

    Japan may retaliate with an all-in to China, which is 1 Bomber, 4 Fighters, but assuming at least one man is left behind for Manchuria, only 4 infantry going in.
    With three fighters (one US, one Russian, one UK) the Japanese may take enough losses so that it: a) cannot not take China, b) take with one or two men.

    It then would have very few if any men actually on the land territories of Asia, and Russian, English and American troops able to challenge the three 3 IPC territories.
    Japan may even hold off on a factory purchase if it thinks it may lose the factory?

    In any case, this is taking a lot of attention away from attacking the US, and any attempt to do so would result in an even stronger hold of China.
    The US can observe what Japan does, and possibly even hold China for a 2nd factory there, if things go horribly on the Japanese open.

Suggested Topics

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

25
Online

15.5k
Users

36.8k
Topics

1.5m
Posts