• Amusing counter, except you’re not getting land troops in Asia until J3 (j2 is building transports, j3 is them landing). The UK also gets 2 builds from its complex which could be annoying as well depending on what it is. That would be a great example of the cheetah locking on to a target even though there’s easier ones ;P

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    J1 was building a transport (possibly 3 transports.)

    So J2 is getting a massive influx into Asia and J3 should be getting Australia


  • How many transports is Japan buying on J2? in your counter

    Either way on UK2 and UK3, one turn could be used to buy 2 fodder ships for the aus fleet if they are not destroyed on j1, additionally 2 more inf could be loaded up in aus, plus the help of an american fighter. japan may not even be able to take it back. also, if they do, pulling those transports out of the asian dumping requirements kills germany. this becomes a huge distraction. and if you slowly add to the us navy in the pacific, which you should base in alaska, you force japan to invest in ships.

    As for the losses in africa, the US can start dumping a few in there.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    On japan 2?  If any it would probably be 1 transport.  But honestly, with a purchase of 3 transports on Japan 1, there’s no real need for more. (You have 5 at this point and you are not yet earning enough to need more.)

    Meanwhile, you have two transports, 2 battleships and maybe one or two fighters and/or a bomber hitting Australia.  Even if England produces maximum and survives the first battery, you have Solomons, New Guinea and E. Indies that can provide you with more cannon fodder for a second run at her.


  • :roll:
    Since you are in fact surrendering India and Persia to Japan and Africa to Germany you may as well pull 2 Inf from India to Australia and the 1 inf from NZ. So, with 3 transports full of inf in Australia you should build at least one tp on UK2. And perhaps a sub to pair up with the one that spared the attack on the jap sub in round one, ( I’ll bet the US is still smarting from that). Or at least a fighter to put on that little carrier, perhaps the US plane from Hawaii will land there for ya, or perhaps  not.
    Certainly, this strat will put a small drain on the UK economy, only 2 units after all, so they should be able to threaten Europe by round 5 or so.
    My guess is that the Japanese player will stop at nothing to capture Australia ASAP. I certainly would. I’d hit pearl light, (that sub will certainly help out ) or, not at all!
    and all my fleet and air would stage to hit Australia by J2, J3 at the latest. Let’s see, that is 6 fighters, a bomber, 2 BB shots, an armor, 2 infantry and a partridge in a pear tree, er; I mean an artillery. If your playing LL, that is most likely 7 kills! on the first combat round. Anywhere between 3 to 10 if playing regular dice  :-P.
    With a Maximum of 10 ground units in Aus it will most likely be in Japans hands on J3. Or, Japan can merely sink or chase off all the UK ships in the Pacific. 100 troops in Australia are useless without transports.
    Was Japan delayed in Asia a turn or two? yes.
    Will the allies benifit from it in the long run? IMHO, Not very much.
    The surrendering of the underbelly of Asia and northern Africa to the axis so easily and early on will more than make up for the delay.
      It might work once, but, IMO, it is not the best Strat for the Allies.
          :roll:


  • I think the best luck I have had with an IC down under is one placed latter in the game. An early or initial placement (Colonial Garrison) does prevent a walk in by Japan but that seems about all it acomplishes.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    BTW, I just made a case that you COULD knock over the Australian Industrial Complex before it became a monster to take.  I am NOT necessarily advocating it, NOR am I saying that one shouldn’t try a different technique or even the one I posted.


  • Well, what’s the point of saying you could do something without relating it to whether it’s a good move or not? I could attack W. Russia with 1 inf. I’m not necessarily advocating it either, I’m just saying you can and win.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Bean:

    Well, what’s the point of saying you could do something without relating it to whether it’s a good move or not? I could attack W. Russia with 1 inf. I’m not necessarily advocating it either, I’m just saying you can and win.

    I understand.  But whether you want to knock it over or not depends on your strategy and confidence level.

    Do you think you can handle a KJF without knocking it over?  Obviously a KJF is coming, otherwise the IC in Australia makes little to no sense.

    Do you think you should jump on Russia and hope that you don’t lose in the Pacific until Russia is toppled so you can have the income from the mainland to help you fight back?

    Do you think leaving it alone is a good way to drain resources from England since they now have to build up there to prevent it falling, and will probably build expensive fleet units there after they protect it?

    Do you want the liability of the frazzing complex yourself?  It’s not exactly in a great place to help you, ya know.


  • I understand.  But whether you want to knock it over or not depends on your strategy and confidence level.

    Well done  :-) just went from failing marks to passing  :lol:. You’re acknowledging that taking out the complex has to do a lot of considerations, and not just saying it’s something you “can” do.

    I agree I’d let the Australian IC fly. I’d be very curious to see what kind of output I would see from it for one - would the UK build a BB to make its island hopping easier? Would it build a second fig to fill up its car? Or would it just build a couple inf per round to stop me from taking it permanently and also provide gear for loading? In any case, it’s diverting funds there and Germany should be having a hayday in Africa. If the UK decides to simply sail back to Africa, then they’ve wasted time and let the Germans expand needlessly, yet if the continue on and island hop, it’s a difficult road.

    I also agree that it’s not very helpful to capture versus the effort it cost the Japanese.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I find the Australian IC is more of a threat in AARe because Sydney is now a Victory City, one the axis actually need.

    In a regular revised game, I’d probably let it rot there myself.  Put my transports in SZ 36 with some battleships and carriers so it always seemed threatened so England kept building there, and basically ignore it as a money sink for England.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The problem with an IC build in Australia is that without transports it’s useless.  I might consider it in conjunction with a US Naval build in the Pacific.  I don’t think i’d waste my fighter and DD taking out the Kwang transport.  Better to consolidate the entire fleet in sz30 giving you 1fgt, 1CV, 1DD, 1SS, 2TP, that’s the start of a nice little fleet, combined with a US Fleet build in SZ55, the UK IC would cause me conern as the Jap player.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    in AARe you may want to consider America focused more in the Pacific anyway.  So you might want to throw your Hawaiian fighter down there to help defend it, consolidate the British fleet in SZ 30 and move them back over to Australia and work from there. (It would work in AAR too, but it works BETTER in AARe I think.)


  • I find KJF easier in AARe anyways, so I am a big advocate of an Australian IC with that rule set.


  • Australian IC is a great idea
    and personally i favor it
    i can say its my standard move, altough i must say UK play depends( a lot or not ) upon the G1 move

    so Australia IC can be put in round 1

    even in round 2 if its a surprise

    but i agree with Emperor Mollari without USA going forcefully in Pacific, UK forces down there are doomed

    and altough this strategy is great, if Australian IC falls to the Japanese, it leads Allies to almost certain defeat, since UK spent a lot of IPC on their fleet here and (partially) egnored European theatre, so overall

    i would say anyone go for it

    and dont be dissapointed if it fails, even a few times, find a way to improve the strategy, it can be done, but it requires a good coordination, USSR and USA are (very) important here altought it doesnt seem that way on the first look

    thats my view upon this…

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 12
  • 34
  • 21
  • 9
  • 42
  • 19
  • 14
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts