I think UK needs it the most since it has the job of attacking the Germans first. UK’s IPCs are going downhill rapidly, and it can’t mount much of an offensive on ~24 IPC income.
syntaxerror111 last edited by
I have looked on the forum and didn’t see any articles on this topic.
In a KJF game is it viable to build an IC in Australia? There are a couple of reasons why someone might place one there instead of India:
1. Japan will have to make the choice to either attack Australia with more than it usually does (thereby reducing the number of troops sent to the mainland) or let you threaten its money making islands.
2. If you end up losing it to Japan, you don’t give them an IC on the mainland that can quickly be used to threaten Russia.
There may be other advantages than those listed, but I’m tired and going to bed now.
Let me know what you think.
LuckyDay last edited by
would this be in conjunction with an india IC or instead?
if both, tough to do much against Germany.
if instead, India will be quickly lost and since Australia can’t build as much i don’t think it would be able to build enough to defend against japan who now controls eastern asia. Plus, to get anything off of Australia you are gonna have to build, more ipcs there too.
if japan is gonna build an IC in Asia, they’ll do it no matter if you build one in Australia. they stand a good chance to build another in India then, and will use yours in Australia to build ships to go further harass the US.
all in all, i don’t think I’d build one there as the main hinge-point of taking down Japan…, but that’s just my opinion, i could be wrong…
EagleX16 last edited by
It might be a nice change of pace, but rule #1 Russia needs to be defended. Putting an IC on the mainland where you can pump tanks and such directly at the japanese is a much better option.
I think it’s complicated because if you place the Aussie IC then Japan knows a KJF is in the mix (there’s no point in building an Aussie IC if USA isn’t going Pacific) and will play extra conservative in the Pacific on J1.
Maybe a better idea is place it on UK2 to support the USA in situations where Japan gets diced in the Pacific. But in that context if you can place it on Borneo or East Indies that would be much better.
LuckyDay last edited by
yeah, a turn 2 build would have the advantage of the Japanese already starting in one direction and having to course-correct…
just have to make sure and take and be able to hold Borneo/E Indies…
If playing with National Advantages and using Colonial Garrison it can be quite effective.
Example: I play with 4 others each monday at my home, we use 2 national advantages (decided by dice rolls)
If I am playing UK and get colonial garrison, I place it in Australia immediately before Russia goes and on my turn I buy 1 Battleship and 2 infantry. Move India fleet to west coast Australia, with AA gun on transport down there also. Move Australian sub and transport to same sea zone 38. If the fighter in Egypt survives (unlikely) then fly it on the carrier as an extra bonus. So after the UK turn I have 6 (maybe7) units in sea zone 38 and Japan has 8 within reach. If Japan uses all 8 units to attack, then they limit their attack on Pearl Harbor. If they go with the usual Pearl Harbor attack (Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, sub, 2 fighters, Bomber) then that leaves Japan with only 4 units to attack sea zone 38 and UK holds the distinct advantage.
Ideally this puts Japan at the hard decision of where to send their only destroyer. Pearl Harbor or Australia? Either choice will leave one of their fleets vulnerable to the defending subs opening fire stealth shot, which if successful they will have to take on the Battleship to avoid losing an important casualty before the battle even starts.
The way I see it, the UK pacific fleet is not there to overpower the Japanese fleet, but when combined with a strong USA push in the pacific they can create headaches for Japan. Since Japan only earns 30IPC at the start, whatever naval units they lose they find very expensive to replace and at the cost of land units for Asia.
If Japan still goes ahead with a complex in French Indo-China, then the Australian Complex is threatened, but the same goes for Japan. Each complex is only 2 sea zones away and UK goes before Japan, and Japan’s Kwangtung transport is not within reach of Australia until turn 2.
To help defend India, move the Infantry from Persia and have Russia move 2 Infantry from Kazakh to Persia and 2 tanks into Caucasus for a counter attack, should Japan go all out for India. This also gives Japan another tough decision: Attack China with the Asian troops or attack India? They could attack both, but with a weakened force in India that would not hold the territory from a Russian Counter-attack. Or a gamble on the dice attack in China that might not destroy the Fighter which can then go attack Japan’s unguarded transports or defend Caucasus/Australia.
Although this is not a Guaranteed win Strategy (few are) with some good dice rolls you can quite easily pickup those 4IPC islands from Japan, which are hard for Japan to recapture and be landing more Infantry/Fighters in Norway/Karelia or Bombers in London sucking the money away from Germany. This complex also can support Africa if needed.
I have used this quite a few times, it has worked well and I have been destroyed at other times. The good feeling I have is that if it all goes wrong and I lose it to Japan, it is so far south that they have a hard time making it really useful, all the while the USA is island hopping its way down to liberate it.
If your tired of the same old strategies, give this a try, at the very least its exciting.
Obviously this is a niche strategy, but there could be some use for it - it may allow the Allies to take one of the money islands as soon as US3. Here’s the plan
Unite Pac fleets in sz 30, build IC Aus
Attacking sz 30 is very risky for Japan, and it forces Japan to either to do Pearl light (with more risk of an unfavourable outcome) or skip Pearl altogether.
If Japan does not hit sz 30, build AC, fig, sub, trn on US1.
Move sz 30 fleet to sz 40, build AC sz 40
This threatens a unification of the UK/US fleets in sz 45 on US2/UK3. This combined fleet would consist of BB, 3 AC, 5 fig, 2 sub, 2 DD, 3 trn. This is too much for Japan to take on. If you add the 6th fig on US3/UK4 (and perhaps a UK sub that you build on UK3), you can take Bor or EI on these turns. Your combined Allied fleet would be so large that Japan has to bring something along the lines of 2 BB, 2 AC, 6 fig, bomber, DD, 5 trn, 4 sub to have a good shot at it, which requires a serious investment in the first few turns.
Without the UK IC, you would not have the extra UK carrier - a loaded carrier can make a big difference, and it may save you one turn in bringing down the Japanese in the Pacific. Of course, it comes at a substantial cost against Germany - that’s why it’s not played in most games, but it’s worth a try perhaps.
Japan can try to thwart your unification by moving its fleet to sz 45 itself on J2. I’d have to double check whether that is a worthwhile strategy.