• I have just found great success using austrailia as a uk1 IC place. India is too vulnerable and south africa can be taken with enough german force. But austrailia seems perfect. By killing off the transport at kwangtung with the UK fighter off india and dropping that fighter in a 6 inf loaded up burytia, austrailia is uninvadable for at least two turns. Compounding this benefit is taking the carrier and destroyer two sea zones south and uniting them with the transport and sub off of austrailia who you move two sea zones east. This forces japan to use their fighters, carriers and bb to kill this fleet (those are the only units that can reach) and it tremendously slows them down. They will likely lose two fighters (maybe three) killing the uk fleet if they decide to do it, furthermore, it puts the japan bb and carrier way out of reach and makes them irrelevant for a turn. you can then two 2 inf for a few turns in austrailia before seriously rebuilding down there. If japan doesn’t kill the fleet, you can go island hopping and cause some real havoc. any thoughts

  • It’s an interesting idea. Most people will not attack the united UK fleet immediately, because I think the average is not 2 fighters but more like 4.

    Remember, it’s a give or take situation. While you can island hop, you might have to build another piece of fleet or fighter to fill your carrier to make the Japanese actually sweat. Also, the IPCs you might gain island hopping are going to be given to Germany in Africa. If the Japanese consolidate and keep their fleet say off of Kwangtung, they can counter any big money islands you hit; you have to be careful if the Japanese consolidate their fleet together.

    I’m sure you could make it work to some degree against anyone, but you have to ask yourself if you’re giving Germany too much leeway or if you can handle it. You might have to have the US handle Atlantic operations almost on its own and retake Africa in order to compensate.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Japan 1:

    Carrier, Transport, 2 Infantry

    Japan 2:

    Stage fleet in SZ 48 with entire air force

    Japan 3:

    Invade Australia

    Just a thought.  Havn’t worked out even on paper, just mentioning.  Guess you could do it without the carrier nad 3 transports instead.

  • 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 😜

  • '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.

  • 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


    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

  • 25
  • 19
  • 26
  • 34
  • 27
  • 32
  • 5
  • 50
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys