On building ICs first turn
Assuming NA Colonial Garrison
Dangerous, dangerous assumption, me lad. Colonial Garrison means 3 more units in India at end of UK1. That is pretty magnificent for the Allies. Let us not even SUPPOSE other NAs for the moment given how game-breaking they are.
1a. Gone J3, even with Colonial Garrison, it´s just that you have to take it out before they try something funny.
At end of UK1 with Colonial Garrison you have 6 inf on India (Assume UK1 sees recapture of Anglo-Egypt). That means Russia may well not have to divert forces although it probably will. There will be 1 UK bomber in range, and a fair chance of 2 London fighters in Russia. (options - 2 London fighters plus UK bomber may have attacked Baltic fleet anticipated loss of UK fighters at least. UK bomber and fighter may have landed in Africa after helping reclaim Anglo-Egypt, allowing Germany to attack with 1 bomber 1-2 fighter (probably 1 fighter) G2.) Regardless, there’s a good chance UK has some hitting power.
Taking out the Jap transport at Kwangtung may or may not happen. If it happens, UK’s fleet in the area is diminished. If it doesn’t happen, Japan has more power initially.
Scenario A: Japan Doesn’t Go After India Like a Rabid Hamburger Eating Weasel at Burger King
On J1 you have 2 inf in French Indochina, 3 inf in Kwangtung, 2 inf in Manchuria. Japan will almost certainly want to nab China to eliminate the US fighter. For various reasons that I will not now go into, I think 1-2 fighters the most you will see in action in China. To attain local superiority of force, Japan will want to send most of its mainland infantry into China on J1.
If Japan has 2 transports on J1, you’ll see four units (one a tank) into Asia. (The tank is dangerous because although it probably lands in Burytia or Manchuria, it can head south quickly and join China infantry.)
Regardless, on UK2, you see 9 infantry at India plus possibly more air with subsequent buildup. On J2 you see perhaps 8 inf 1 tank 2 fighter in position to move into French Indochina (not India) assuming abandoning of China (4 inf from China, 1 tank dropped into Asia on J1, 4 infantry dropped into Asia on J2. This is the more generous assumption for Japan as I assume the J2 tank drop (J1 build 3 transport 1 tank) is north, and the tank heads south on J3.) On J3 you see, then, 8 inf 1 tank 5 fighter 1 bomber in position at French Indochina to attack UK India with 12 infantry 2 fighter 1 AA gun. This is not a great fight for Japan given that AA gun. Not BAD perhaps, but 3 UK infantry less would certainly make a big difference, and 3 UK infantry is what UK can have in place on UK1 assuming Colonial Garrison. Colonial Garrison is quite an NA that changes the local superiority of force mechanic in India for a long time. (Panzerblitz is pretty sweet too, but . . . I digress.)
This makes REASONABLE assumptions, but you can still see the nasty uphill battle Japan has. Given the possibility of UK not retaking Anglo-Egypt (especially with fleet consolidation in the Indian Ocean) and the time and possibility of Russian infantry (not a lot, just 2 or 3) joining the defense, Japan has a tough fight on its hands, especially if the Allies do NOT bleed out India to attack French Indochina but just sit there putting 3-4 infantry there a turn (occasional Russian reinforcement) There’s all sorts of wacky things that happen with a KJF plan with a strong US Pacific fleet and possibly a Sinkiang IC too and you have to start really worrying about that J4 (about the same time you have to worry about seriously cracking India) when the US1 Pacific fleet that went US2 at Solomons and US3 to points west. Sure you can hold at French Indochina with infantry and send tanks in through Yakut/China. But it’s still an interesting game.
Scenario B: Japan makes Sweet Sweet Fighter Love to India J1:
Sometimes Japan will do stuff like put 2 infantry in French Indochina for the bid. (There’s a school of thought that holds German Africa bids are important allowing up to 6 ground units plus air to hit Anglo-Egypt on G1, but I think a French Indochina bid viable). With that comes the possibility of threatening a J1 take of India, possibly followed by J2 industrial complex, followed by J5-7 contest of Africa depending on Allied forces there. With less German units headed to Africa, there’s more in Europe, and early Allied landing at Algeria can’t contest with the flexibility Japan has in landing anywhere along the African coast (although it takes a while for Japan to really be in position to drop units into Africa hence the J5-7 instead of J4 drop of J3 produced units from India to Africa - Japan just doesn’t want to bleed out Asia that early to grab Africa)
But anyways - even assuming NO Japan build, depending on the Kwangtung transport surviving, you have either 2 inf 4 fig 1 bomber or 4 inf 4 fig 1 bomber in range and with a bid 6 inf 4 fig 1 bomber in range. Let us say that UK decided to retreat its forces consolidating fleet southwest or west-southwest of Australia. (significant difference) You may see the UK fighter on India, you may not, but you still have to contend with 6 inf 1 AA gun on India. Without a hell of a lot of infantry fodder, that battle gets REAL nasty REAL fast if that UK AA gun hits even 1 fighter - God forbid it should hit 2, especially for an amphibious assault with no retreat.
And that’s making assumptions on the Allied move - it could be that instead you’ll face 7 inf 1 tank 1 AA gun (If there’s just one German tank at Anglo-Egypt in a case in which there was no German bid, you might see the Trans-Jordan infantry plus up to 1 UK fighter from Indian Ocean plus 1 UK bomber attacking Anglo-Egypt to prevent German blitz through Africa. So the Persia infantry joins the 3 infantry at India plus the newly produced 3 infantry at the UK Colonial Garrison IC plus possible Russian tank which is admittedly bad for the Allies, but makes for interesting dice at India.
Sweet sweet fighter love is a big problem for Japan because of the risk to fighters.
Note - in both Scenario A and Scenario B, I do not mention the fact that after a Japanese capture of India, Japan can start producing units at India the very next turn with the industrial complex already in place. That’s a BIG bonus for Japan. Given all the discouraging things I described, it sounds like maybe Japan should hardly even go after India. But that is NOT my opinion. I think the Allied cost of defending India is very much as xenon posted. Given a United States Pacific fleet buildup, though, the Allies still have a very playable game.
Personally, I prefer the less flashy and exciting but more reliable (IMHO) KGF. Note I say IMHO. That means, first, I’m a ho. Second, I mean that it is my opinion that KGF is more reliable, but I can see entirely good and clear reasons to pursue KJF - including to a great deal personal preference.
1b. Should taking it out not be possible (Optimal allied cooperation). Sink the fleet (building up both land forces and fleet with three production slots IS impossible) and start bleeding them dry in FIC trading back and forth.
2. Germany blitzes Africa uncontested
3. Sea Lion Invitation
4. If the allies really manage to hold it the incredible amount of troops needed will be missing elsewhere.
Yep. Agreed - mostly. (“They come at night . . . mostly . . .”)
That is, I think that if you DO see an Indian IC, you WILL see a KJF, you WILL see a US Pacific fleet, you WILL see the UK trying to unite with the US fleet, you WILL see India-Sinkiang-fleet-air-navy shenanigans. I’m REALLY not even remotely as much of a fan of KJF as Cmdr. Jennifer is, but you do see some exciting games for KJF.
1. Lost G1
2. Traded back and forth for about 2 turns, if Indian fleet survives J1 ( It will not in this case, i would certainly love to wrap the complex up for my axis buddy in exchange for two zeros and a carrier of mine, bonus: Indian Ocean becomes Mare Nostrum)
3. G3 it´s german- peroid
Ya total agree. UK1 IC at Egypt? ROMMEL LOLZ!
1. Never played it- it´s 1IPC- you´re serious???
I take insanity very seriously!
But no, no . . . Persia IS the key. Once Japan claims India, it can pump out three more units a turn, but once Japan claims Persia, it has access to Kazakh (otherwise well guarded) and Caucasus. Those are big, big gains for Japan.
I don’t think I would go so far as to put an IC at Persia, but I can see WHY it’s considered, given its importance and its proximity to easy reinforcements from Caucasus and given that Russian recapture means UK production capability next round.
1. Far, far away
2. Without american fleet support useless
3. Very costy for Japan to take, the hawaiian fighter is enough to seal the deal first turn
4. If played carefully with a fleet unification UK1 and later with the US at the Solomons (T3 UK moves in first) there will be a respectable defensive fleet to cover US island grab.
5. Very costy to implement. I played it once and bought two fighters UK1 to fill a US carrier.
But this also means US may affort pacific buildup (more ships!) and/or sinkiang complex.
In many ways yes. I think you DO see that American fleet support - why put a UK IC at Australia if you weren’t counting on US defensive reinforcements? But if you see a UK IC at Australia, you see a LOTTA pressure on India and the Japanese fleet moving to prevent UK/US fleet unification.
To be clear, I don’t think it GREAT for the Allies to pop an IC in Australia, at least any more so than any other Allied plan. But I also don’t think it necessarily HORRIBLE either . . .
0. I see this most often
1. Keeps UK IPC in Africa loss bearable
2. It´s a lure. Any german forces send out to take it are out of position for anything useful the turns to come. For japan it´s costy as well because of transport capacity and less pressure on Russia, their forces are delayed 2 turns)
3. It´s cheap to refill. Two units means inf art UK1 (the cheapest way to kill a blitzing tank), maybe two tanks UK2. Anyway you´ll only spend between 6 and 10 IPCs.
OK, this is my personal opinion only. Once again - SOMETIMES I say “you will see this and that”. Sometimes I say “I think you will see this and that and I think this and that about it.” When I say the first, I am pretty darn sure of myself. When I say the second, I have some opinions, but I think the trial far from over.
My personal opinion - and you will note, I say personal opinion - is that the UK South African IC sucks if your allies are good. It is my opinion that if the Allies work in concert that a UK South African IC is a waste of IPCs. I cite various things to support my case, including
3) The possibility that US can build expensive tanks to blitz through Africa reclaiming it from Germany quickly means a South African IC may not be necessary
4) The constant drain on producing South African units, and the J8+ serious threat on the African coast that forces UK to stay put at South Africa (moving out through Africa weakens the S. African position so Japan may capture it with transports stationed east of Anglo-Egypt. It is a LONG time before Japan is really in position to do this, but once Japan has transports in position, UK can no longer afford to spread through Africa, as spread units will be wiped by Japan infantry, fighters, and tanks. UK WILL retreat to South Africa, and although 4-5 infantry can hold South Africa quite well, that’s a 15 IPC industrial complex and 12-15 IPC of units not used elsewhere - and note that Japan can still dump to Rhodesia (Kenya for you TripleA buffs) to force either more UK defensive builds at a time at which Russia is threatened, OR UK abandonment of South Africa, which means a Japanese DEATHGRIP on Africa. (The only thing that prevents the deathgrip is US reinforcements landing at Algeria or perhaps elsewhere in Africa, and if you had that level of commitment, I think it would have been better to go with 2 UK transports anyways!)
Now, this is NOT to say that a IC at South Africa is a BAD idea. In fact, I think if you have no confidence in your allies (US and Russia), that an IC at South Africa is the BEST way to protect UK territories in the region. My opinion is that Russia stands a good chance of falling in the meantime, but in some games, that is perfectly acceptable to the UK player (i.e. when there are individual winners, and the UK player doesn’t mind Germany and Japan finishing ahead as they’re on the other team, and the UK player can claim best overall performance based on territory IPC value gained in proportion to initial territory IPC value, or some such conditions).
Given a US Pacific fleet build to aid the UK IC, I think the Allies have a playable game, especially with the time advantage gained with Colonial Garrison. I do not say, or think, it is necessarily a SUPERIOR game to a KGF, though.