The UK and Industrial Centers



  • @Bean:

    I’m hoping I face someone who tries that some day, all I’ve got is theories to counter it without experience. Would you care to try it against me Mattpun in a test game? I don’t take Axis at less than 9 IPCs.

    Sorry pal, 9 bid is too much advantage for Axis. Even with KGF. It would prove nothing.



  • hear is a talk on bids, i’m sure i grabed the right one. any way i think it shows that a bid 9 isn’t as one sided as your making it out to be.



  • The turning point is 8 IPC.  At that point, Axis have enough to bid either a transport or infantry and tank.

    Infantry and tank in Africa allow high probability G1 hold of Africa past UK1.

    Transport build in Baltic combined with immediately effective tech rolls allows high probability G1 invasion of London.

    Infantry and tank in Asia allow J1 invasion of India.

    Invasion of London with Long Range Air tech and a transport bid is why bids of 8+ are rare.  But most of the organized play sites I’ve seen in the United States prevent invasion of enemy capitals on the first turn; TripleA’s ladder rules state you can’t invade enemy capitals on the first turn, LHTR (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) delay tech from becoming effective until the end of the turn, preventing the G1 invasion of London again.

    Note that the TripleA ladder also forbids placing more than one bid unit per territory.  Under some places’ bid placement rules, though, a bid of 9 allows for 3 infantry in the key territories of Libya and French Indochina (or possibly Borneo or Ukraine or Belorussia for safety/future attack), so can be very effective.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I just want to say, FROM EXPERIENCE, that it is much too hard to set up Allied Industrial Centers near Japan.

    A)  You draw away resources needed to hem in Germany.
    B)  You create target points for Japan to stack against.
    C)  You create points you must defend so as to not have wasted the money on the industrial centers.

    Now, with that said, may I humbly suggest the following:

    1)  You put an IC up in Africa.  This way, you don’t need to worry if the English fleet is sunk because you can still maintain control on Africa.

    1a)  I have found that Germany almost always has such a large army in Egypt after G1 that it’s statistically impossible for England to liberate anyway.

    1b)  I have found that an Industrial Complex in S. Africa combined with reinforcements from India can effectively end Germany’s conquest of Africa without the British Navy having to run the risk of being hit by the Med Fleet + Air Force.

    1c)  If you are building in S Africa to hold Africa, this frees your fleet up to land in North Asia (Generally pretty safe from Luftwaffe Attacks)

    1. Russia works on Infantry and Tanks.  Yes, you read that right!  TANKS.  If Russia does NOT have at least 16 tanks by the mid-point of the game, you are not building enough.  And yes, 29 IPC on Round 3 is 3 Infantry, 4 Tanks, not 8 Infantry, Tank.  The point is to scare Germany out of stacking in trade zones to own it for the long term.  (Because they cannot land the fighters to help defend.)

    2a)  I feel Russia should go pretty infantry heavy for a couple of rounds and play conservatively.  Why risk hitting Ukraine and W. Russia on Round 1?  Just hit W. Russia. 😛

    2b)  I feel the Russian submarine should make a run to the Pacific.  It’s an extra unit to block the Japanese navy or to assist in defense with the American navy.

    3)  America:  NAVY!

    3a) Screw Sinkiang and China.  Let the Japanese have them.  Industrials are just free income to Japan.  It’s like giving Japan a 15 IPC bid for each one you build.

    3b) The Submarine Strategy: Buy Submarines, lots of Submarines

    3c) The Destroyer Strategy: Buy Destroyers almost exclusively.  This doesn’t work as well if you are in a no tech game, because, like Submarines, once you own the sea, they serve no purpose.

    3d) The Battleship Strategy: My personal favorite.

    3di) Battleships have innate damage control in so much it takes two hits to sink them.

    3dii) Battleships can shell the shore, despite a no-tech game.

    3e) Every round, if the money allows, get a transport and/or some infantry to fill them.  A fleet with no transports is ignorable.



  • Hi all again,

    Thanks for the discussion…

    In defence of the India IC and US IC in Sianking (they must both occur), both of them block what is the major allied weakness of the game: the ease and accesibility of Moscow and Russia generally to Japanese invasion.

    Whilst many focus on what the 30 IPC (plus money spent on reinforcements on the ICs) could be spent on - navy, troops and trasports, airforce etc - the idea is to PREVENT the invasion of Russia.

    In games I’ve played with advanced opponents, the threat to Russia comes from Japan for two critical reasons:

    1. Most important and most overlooked, the economic strength of Russia in this game is its eastern provinces that stretch from behind moscow to behind Cauc. Excluding Moscow and Cauc (with 12 IPC value and ICs) where is the rest of Russia’s income? Besides Karelia and Archangel, everything else is EAST.

    2. The accessibility of the eastern provinces means that the US and UK need to build ICs. Russia, as I was saying, if played by a competent player, should be able to hold Germany off barring massive disasters. Russia gets into MASSIVE problems when assaulted by Japan AND Germany. If we look at the income, for example, though Germany could be earning somewhere between 45-49 ICs fairly easily a significant portion of that must be spent (I’d say close to half) on defensive purchases in WEu and Ger - especially if the Baltic is lost or through luck/bad planning German aviation totals less than 5 aircraft. Thus, Russia can almost match production with Germany and is greatly aided by the accessibility of its ICs to the front. This is further enhanced by the R1 russian turn into West Russia. A good Russian player will hardly ever get overun there unless they get reckless with trades - especially in EEu. Bringing Russian troops into EEu unless WEu has been held by the allies is tantamount to a death sentence, even on T1. It negates the natural Russian advantages close to Moscow and gives them to Germany.

    3. The Key to the IC builds is this: as Russia will only fall when Japan is at the gates of Moscow - because Russia now fights on two fronts AND has lost almost half of its income - the defence provided in Sianking and India cuts off two routs to the Capital. If Japan is in India, it can blitz to Cau; if Japan is in Sianking, it can blitz into Moscow - both aided by the always superior Japanese airforce. The IC builds block the two most vulnerable routes into Russia. It makes Japan crawl through the East, one turn at a time.

    I also think people underestimate the fleet advantages that the allies have in the east on the first turn. Adding to what I said earlier, I’ve even played this ultra-aggressive KJF centred on UK:

    T1
    Russia: as before, with a lone tank to India
    UK: Destroyer off india to lone transport; India 3 men and one figther to FIC (2 men 1 fighter); Australian trans/sub/2 men into water off New Guniea (no attack); non-combat moves transport picks up anyone left in Persia/Africa, egypt destroyer to India.
    US: as before.

    The UK attack into FIC is an extremely aggressive move but often effective (out of four units, at least one hit often two - this leaves Japan with no units that can attack India on t1). FIC is often not taken, but it does not matter because no Japanese troops are left to fight. Japan is left with only men in Manchuria and Kwantang - hardly enough to take on the ICs or the Russian troops.

    The UK navy also create big problems for Japan. Unless the Aust transport is taken out either the Phillipines or Borneo will fall. The destroyer of Kwantung must be attacked too to allow reinforcements into FIC from Japan. The UK Navy of India also has a transport that can attack Jap islands when the 2nd Japanese Navy moves home to protect transport build from aviation. Plus, Japan must do Pearl Harbour. Significant difficulties.

    Regarding other suggestions:
    1. Pearl very light (dest, sub, fighter, bomber) is very risky - if the carrier is not destroyed, Japan faces significant invasion problems very early.
    2. 9 bid is way too high (5-7 depending on skill)
    3. Though its cool to discuss, does anyone actually fear a German invasion? Come on, even with India IC ( say 3 men build) that gives 6-7 men, plus 2 fighters, fleet to block, US reinforcements, and at least 10 units from starting and t1 builds. If Ger wants to try, good luck

    I think the emphasis on how the KJF weakens Allies into Europe is also overated. UK can go into Norway very easily, and push across to Karelia. The US can very easily get into Africa in T1. Germ, though having airforce in WEEu, must have some airforce in Eastern Front. If I’m allies, I’ll often send destoyer and 2 trans on first turn into Africa even if in range of Ger aviation. I can replace this very easily ( panama destroyer/ build 2 transports) and will slowly but surely drain Germ eco by fighting in Africa AND shooting down 1/3 planes.

    In essence the US into Afrcia plus Sianking IC, and UK into Norway plus INDIA IC is a giant containment strategy. And, as we know, the longer the game goes - ESPECIALLY with UK not losing all its cash - the harder it is for Axis to win. Send Japan backwards on T1 and everything that comes later is easier.

    Cheers



  • If the Allies truly can spare any more than some infantry, some air cover, and the occasional tank or artillery unit, I’d imagine the best power to be supplying those troops would be Russia. So, I don’t really see the need for the US/UK to be fighting in mainland Asia, unless they happen to funnel troops that far east. It’s all about convenience.

    And I don’t see what’s so urgent. In the first few rounds, Japan is busy setting up its own shuck-shuck and establishing dominance. Immediately dropping two units in Sin and three in Ind each turn is going to prevent what exactly? By the time the Japanese do finally arrive, they will vastly outnumber any five-turn buildup. The western Allies will either gift their ICs to Japan or have them ripped from their cold, dead fingers.

    Sin/Ind ICs would mainly protect US/UK money – not so much Russia’s – and wouldn’t deny Japan much at all. Sure, Japan would be down 5 IPCs a round. But multiply that by six rounds (about the time it would take to conquer Ind and Sin) and you get, wow, 30 IPCs – exactly how much Japan wouldn’t have to spend on Ind/Sin ICs because hey, it’s getting them for free this time.

    I’m also not crazy about the FIC attack. Maybe it’s a good idea when Africa is beyond lost, but if you can rid Anglo-Egypt of German tanks on UK1, that can be a huge money saver.



  • @Mattpun:

    Whilst many focus on what the 30 IPC (plus money spent on reinforcements on the ICs) could be spent on - navy, troops and trasports, airforce etc - the idea is to PREVENT the invasion of Russia.

    In games I’ve played with advanced opponents, the threat to Russia comes from Japan for two critical reasons:

    1. Most important and most overlooked, the economic strength of Russia in this game is its eastern provinces that stretch from behind moscow to behind Cauc. Excluding Moscow and Cauc (with 12 IPC value and ICs) where is the rest of Russia’s income? Besides Karelia and Archangel, everything else is EAST.

    That’s 8 IPC in Burytia, Soviet Far East, Yakut, Evenki, Novosibirsk, and Kazakh, if memory serves.  Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Archangel, West Russia, and Caucasus total 15 IPC.  Besides that, there is the problem of logistics and defense for Russia.  Infantry at Russia must travel to Novosibirsk then Yakut to threaten Japan’s front line, but at that point they bump into Japan’s infantry transport dumping.  The alternative is for Russia to send in through China/Ssinkiang, but Russia can never go past that point in force, as if the Russians do hit French Indochina, Manchuria, or Kwangtung, Japan simply smashes them  Russia CANNOT CONTROL Japanese expansion, particularly if the Japanese go heavy on tanks.

    I believe the two ICs do not change this situation much.  The only way I think it possible for a two-IC plan to work is for the United States of America to also build a Pacific navy.

    2. The accessibility of the eastern provinces means that the US and UK need to build ICs. Russia, as I was saying, if played by a competent player, should be able to hold Germany off barring massive disasters. Russia gets into MASSIVE problems when assaulted by Japan AND Germany. If we look at the income, for example, though Germany could be earning somewhere between 45-49 ICs fairly easily a significant portion of that must be spent (I’d say close to half) on defensive purchases in WEu and Ger - especially if the Baltic is lost or through luck/bad planning German aviation totals less than 5 aircraft.

    So you are a proponent of building Ssinkiang and India ICs, while trying an Atlantic buildup?  Cracking Germany is a difficult proposition, and slowing down the attack on Germany by bleeding of IPCs into ICs and units in India and Ssinkiang is, I think, a losing strategy.  Japan can pull its aircraft into range of Asia by J3, crack one of the ICs, and start seriously messing with Russia.

    Thus, Russia can almost match production with Germany and is greatly aided by the accessibility of its ICs to the front. This is further enhanced by the R1 russian turn into West Russia. A good Russian player will hardly ever get overun there unless they get reckless with trades - especially in EEu. Bringing Russian troops into EEu unless WEu has been held by the allies is tantamount to a death sentence, even on T1. It negates the natural Russian advantages close to Moscow and gives them to Germany.

    3. The Key to the IC builds is this: as Russia will only fall when Japan is at the gates of Moscow - because Russia now fights on two fronts AND has lost almost half of its income - the defence provided in Sianking and India cuts off two routs to the Capital. If Japan is in India, it can blitz to Cau; if Japan is in Sianking, it can blitz into Moscow - both aided by the always superior Japanese airforce. The IC builds block the two most vulnerable routes into Russia. It makes Japan crawl through the East, one turn at a time.

    I disagree.  Regardless of the Japanese moves, the Japs should have at least 5 fighter 1 bomber in Asia by J3, particularly if, as it seems you advocate, the Allies are ALSO building up their Atlantic fleet (Japan doesn’t need air in the Pacific).  With Japan unthreatened, at least one of those ICs should crack, probably around J4-5ish.

    I also think people underestimate the fleet advantages that the allies have in the east on the first turn. Adding to what I said earlier, I’ve even played this ultra-aggressive KJF centred on UK:

    T1
    Russia: as before, with a lone tank to India
    UK: Destroyer off india to lone transport; India 3 men and one figther to FIC (2 men 1 fighter); Australian trans/sub/2 men into water off New Guniea (no attack); non-combat moves transport picks up anyone left in Persia/Africa, egypt destroyer to India.
    US: as before.

    The UK attack into FIC is an extremely aggressive move but often effective (out of four units, at least one hit often two - this leaves Japan with no units that can attack India on t1). FIC is often not taken, but it does not matter because no Japanese troops are left to fight. Japan is left with only men in Manchuria and Kwantang - hardly enough to take on the ICs or the Russian troops.

    I disagree very much.

    1.  Egypt destroyer should either be cut off or destroyed.  Every German player should take Anglo-Egypt on G1.

    2.  You bleed off India, and if you fail to destroy the Japanese fighter, you are totally hosed in Asia with nothing to stop the Jap advance; you get six infantry in India next turn (UK Persia infantry, UK transported infantry from Africa, 3 infantry built in India - IF you succeed.  But Japan starts dumping infantry into the coast pretty quickly, and your 3 unit per turn build in India can’t match Japan’s churning out of 8 per turn.

    3.  Let’s not forget what happens if your destroyer attack on Kwangtung fails.  Japanese transport dumps Jap infantry in India, supported by Japanese air.  J1 IC in India is BIG BONUS for Axis.

    The UK navy also create big problems for Japan. Unless the Aust transport is taken out either the Phillipines or Borneo will fall. The destroyer of Kwantung must be attacked too to allow reinforcements into FIC from Japan. The UK Navy of India also has a transport that can attack Jap islands when the 2nd Japanese Navy moves home to protect transport build from aviation. Plus, Japan must do Pearl Harbour. Significant difficulties.

    Regarding other suggestions:
    1. Pearl very light (dest, sub, fighter, bomber) is very risky - if the carrier is not destroyed, Japan faces significant invasion problems very early.

    Who attacks Pearl with dest, sub, fighter, bomber?  The answer is - only someone that can make TREMENDOUS gains elsewhere.  Of course it is risky; I think anyone would agree with that.  But if Japan is taking those sorts of risks, Japan is probably kicking a lot of a** elsewhere.

    2. 9 bid is way too high (5-7 depending on skill)

    I keep hearing the 9 bid is too high.  I keep saying that THE BEST BID CHANGES WITH THE RULES USED FOR BID PLACEMENT (DUN DUN DUN).

    3. Though its cool to discuss, does anyone actually fear a German invasion? Come on, even with India IC ( say 3 men build) that gives 6-7 men, plus 2 fighters, fleet to block, US reinforcements, and at least 10 units from starting and t1 builds. If Ger wants to try, good luck

    Er, wat?  German invasion of what?  Hell, I’ll just ram Germany down Africa’s throat, run German infantry in towards Moscow, then switch to German Mediterranean infantry drops into Caucasus backed up by G3-4+ built tanks.

    I think the emphasis on how the KJF weakens Allies into Europe is also overated. UK can go into Norway very easily, and push across to Karelia. The US can very easily get into Africa in T1. Germ, though having airforce in WEEu, must have some airforce in Eastern Front. If I’m allies, I’ll often send destoyer and 2 trans on first turn into Africa even if in range of Ger aviation. I can replace this very easily ( panama destroyer/ build 2 transports) and will slowly but surely drain Germ eco by fighting in Africa AND shooting down 1/3 planes.

    You must be playing against some weak a** German players, srsly.  They don’t even take Anglo-Egypt on G1.  All these nebulous gains are easy if the Allies spend heavily in the Atlantic; if the Allies are bleeding off 30 IPC initially for 2 ICs and 9-15 IPC thereafter for infantry/tanks/fighters at those ICs, then German economy should be roaring.  Unless, as said, German player is insane/idiotic.  Which actually sounds like a lot of people I know.  Lol.  Maybe even me.  :lol:

    In essence the US into Afrcia plus Sianking IC, and UK into Norway plus INDIA IC is a giant containment strategy. And, as we know, the longer the game goes - ESPECIALLY with UK not losing all its cash - the harder it is for Axis to win. Send Japan backwards on T1 and everything that comes later is easier.

    Cheers

    Yes, bottoms up.  😄



  • @Mattpun:

    3. Though its cool to discuss, does anyone actually fear a German invasion? Come on, even with India IC ( say 3 men build) that gives 6-7 men, plus 2 fighters, fleet to block, US reinforcements, and at least 10 units from starting and t1 builds. If Ger wants to try, good luck

    @newpaintbrush:

    Er, wat?  German invasion of what?  Hell, I’ll just ram Germany down Africa’s throat, run German infantry in towards Moscow, then switch to German Mediterranean infantry drops into Caucasus backed up by G3-4+ built tanks.

    I think mattpun was referring to my assertion that the UK would need to keep quite a few units on London. I guess I was thinking of a multi-IC UK that was more focused on dropping units in SAf/Ind/Aus than landing in Nor/Kar/Arc. If the UK is landing 2-3 transports in Europe, then that alone should secure London pretty well.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I disagree.  Russia will not fall at all if Japan is at the gates of Moscow because Germany will be at the gates of Berlin.

    Actually, the BEST game I ever had was when England went balls to the walls against Japan by landing in Archangelsk, through Russia and into Novosibirsk while Russia pushed into Europe and America worked on Africa and landing in S. Europe (as defined as W. Europe, S. Europe, Balkans and Ukraine.)

    This maximized Russia’s income because England liberated land while Russia conquered land and it conserved Russian armies by not forcing Russia to trade with Japan.  This allowed me to get 30 Armor with Russia, and if Russia is strong enough to have 30 armor to throw back and forth across the board with impunity (or very near) then it’s game over for the Axis.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 4
  • 42
  • 38
  • 7
  • 83
  • 13
  • 60
I Will Never Grow Up Games

26
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts