• india look’s like the prime territory to build a i.c. for the u.k.
    would the east indies be too complicated and expensive to build a i.c. strategy wise, with all the ship’s that would be needed to guard the supply route,

    what about a u.s. i.c. at brazil, if there would be a surprise attack on the way, the u.s. player could build 1 -3 unit’s there to discourage attack’s,

    i think that if china captures a japanese built i.c. the china player should be able to build units to the value of the total territory value of china held territories, aswell as the 1 infantry for 3 territory rule

  • Just a few comments, how I sould do. There are no right or wrong:

    1. If the Japanese on their T1 don’t focus all out on India, but divert their forces (edit: and if German T1 is not to strong and Soviet T1 is not to weak), I would go for a IC in India. But then you are committed to defend it hard. Move some Russian infantry as a reserve to Persia, prepared to move to India if threatened. Also have a reserv of T-34s in Caucasus. Move in as much UK equipment as possible, including the two RAF fighters in England. Also try to get as many US fighters as possible to India in US T2. If necessary, I will use the UK destroyers to slow down advancing Japanese Naval Movements.

    2. I would not go for an IC in the East Indies, I think it will take to much effort to defend it. And Japan will, if they want to, take it.

    3. My enemies have from time to time bought an US IC in Brazil, but the IC has never done anything to change the outcome of the war. And you don’t want to loose it to Italy. Or German bombing raids etc. Personally, I think that an IC in Brazil it is a waste of money.

    4. Yes, we have played with a “house rule” saying that China collects income as normal and buy Infantry at a cost of 2 IPC, and if they capture an IC in China, they may produce as any other nation, but their Infantry still only costs 2 IPC. However, as the rules states, China was not an Industrialised Country. So I don’t know. But, perhaps one could argue that if Russia liberates a Japanese IC in Manchuria, there could be a “house rule” saying that the territory is Chinese, but the IC is Russian. I.e. Russia don’t colect the 3 IPC, but they may build 3 units there (I have read Winston Churchill’s memoirs from the war, and Stalin had interests in Manchuria, but after negotiations with Chiang Kai Chek there were only some minor border changes - some modification after the war 1904, the Kuril Islands, etc…)

  • I agree with what Hakan said.  I’ve never seen a U.S. IC in Brazil that dramatically affected the game - I don’t think it creates enough of an advantage to justify NOT putting those resources into a Pacific navy.  I also don’t like a East Indies IC because it is very hard to defend.  You need to commit too many resources to it.  I do however like the UK Indian IC - a great option as long as it can be defended the first few rounds - like what Hakan said.

  • i think that a india i.c. is the best option, with a u.k. build of 1 i.c. at india at round 1 there is a good chance that the japan player would not have enough of a force to attack india, and while building 3 units a round, there is good scope for the u.k. player to attack the japan fleet at the pacific, and counter manouvers to capture the east indies, borneo, new guinea and australia

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If you are lucky and Japan is not primed to take India round 2, an Indian IC can be a godsend.

    If Germany did not hit Egypt, than an Egyptian IC is even better! (Italy has no chance, not with 4 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber in Egypt at the end of England 1.)

    I like one in Philippines as well, FIC isn’t half bad either.

    France works well for the Allies too.

  • i think that the best time for germany to hit egypt would be round 1, before the u.k. could build a I.C.
    without a I.C. at egypt, when playing the u.k. and trying to hold africa is impossible,

    germany can call upon armor from libya, 1 infantry supported by artillery from libya, and 1 infantry, 1 armor from france, or 2 infantry from france, supported by a bomber from germany egypt could easily fall at round 1, before the u.k. had a chance to defend,

    if i were the u.k. player, i would move the 2 infantry from trans-jordan > to egypt, and build a I.C. there, or the infantry and artillery from india > egypt, and there would be no need for the I.C. at egypt,

    if germany has not reinforced libya, a u.k. attack at libya would be likely, that is what happens when i play, the u.k. player builds a I.C. at egypt, and germany is wiped out at north africa,

    the way that i see to stop this, is to move italian infantry to libya, to bulk up the defense, it makes the u.k. player wary of overstretching their hand, and a fighter or two can throw the cat among the pigeon’s hitting at 4 defence,

    also a double attack from italy and germany can soon knock out the u.k. at egypt

  • @d142:

    without a I.C. at egypt, when playing the u.k. and trying to hold africa is impossible,

    It’s possible: South Africa IC, much more valuable than people thinks

  • a south africa i.c. could be valuable to the u.k. player, building units to thwart off a german occupation of africa, which is not easy to reclaim when africa is captured, it also leaves the u.k. within 2 moves of the pacific,
    with a i.p.c. value of 2 south africa has the capability to defend africa or the pacific,
    i think that a value of 3 - 5 would be needed to defend africa and the pacific, with that there would be less need for a i.c. at india

  • Whenever I play Germany/Italy, I dread the IC in Egypt!

    I am so relieved when it is not purchased and placed there.  😄

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If Egypt has fallen and Japan is primed to take India on Japan 2, then S. Africa is where my English IC goes.  It’s not as close to the action as the one in Egypt or India and it’s much easier to knock out than people think unless England stacks the crud out of it, and then, that kind of defeated the purpose of the IC in S. Africa, IMHO.

    As for Shakespeare: you might be relieved when England does not put an IC in Egypt, but I am relieved when Germany doesn’t attack Egypt allowing me to put an IC there without any worry about it falling to Italy!

    Germany doesn’t even have to take Egypt to prevent the IC there.  Just do enough damage that there’s a good chance Italy (with 3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter, Cruiser, Battleship) can take it and England won’t build it there.

    Same with India.  Japan can do everything they want to do, as long as they keep enough units in range to take out AA Gun, 4 Infantry, Artillery, Fighter and possibly a bomber (sometimes I throw it in to tip the scales of the battle my way) then they are fine too.

  • Good points!

  • manchuria is the obvious territory for japan to build a I.C. the east indies would also be a prime target for a I.P.C. hungry japan player to launch atacks to the west, how can the u.k. and russia stop a determined japan player from gobbling up all the pacific islands, the middle east, and russia

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t like Manchuria.  I used too.  But it’s too far from the SE Mainland.

    I don’t like Sumatra/Borneo either because it requires transports to get the units to the mainland.  That means you have to give them ships to protect them.

  • manchuria is a good option to build a base to attack russia, it frees the pacific transport fleet to attack the other islands,
    and attack india or the u.s.

    the east indies and borneo are not good territories to build a I.C. the building of transport, units, and battleships are too costly, and when they are sunk by u.s. and u.k. fleets, there would be a constant rebuild of transports to launch attacks,
    a east indies I.C. could break the bank of the japan player, after building the I.C. the japan player would have to defend it, or else it could be easily captured by the u.k. or the u.s. and used to build aircraft carriers and fighters, i could see a east indies I.C. takeover being beneficial to the u.s. player, with that the u.s. would be behind the enemy line, and could attack japan from everywhere at the pacific

  • Norway?

  • @Frontovik:


    I like Norway as an option - I’ve placed an IC there (as UK) many times.  It’s hard for Germany to liberate Norway too.  The only thing is that it obviously doesn’t help you at all in Asia or the Pacific the way India does.  I think the times that I’ve placed the IC complex in Norway it was later in the game after I had a foothold in Asia (with an Indian IC).

  • I think France is a great place for an allied factory.

    1. step: Atttack and conquer France
    2. step: Build a factory in France
    3. step: Pour out a mix of land units ( 3 infantry/1 artillery/2 tanks) and attack Italy or Germany.

    I would like to see the axis counter move to this, lol  :lol:

  • Typically a good German player wouldn’t allow the Allies to control France for a full round of play.

  • as the allies i would love to have a factory in france.  seems though everytime i take france, the italians or the germans take it right back.  i surely would not want to buy the germans a factory to use in destroying the allies.

  • Yeah, France is way too easy for Germany to liberate…

  • @katfishkris:

    as the allies i would love to have a factory in france.  seems though everytime i take france, the italians or the germans take it right back.  i surely would not want to buy the germans a factory to use in destroying the allies.

    Byt this french factory is a Trojan Horse.

    Usually a skilled german player will abandon France and move all units against Moscow ASAP. That is, if he want to win. Now if the allies conquer France, the skilled german player will just ignore this, and continue the push against Moscow ASAP. But not if the allies place a factory there.

    An Allied paid factory in France is a gift to the Huns, just like the gift the Greeks gave to the Trojans.

    If the Huns accept the gift, then France will soon be a deadzone that are tradet back and forth, with units that originally was bound for Moscow. Soon the Slaves will visit the Huns. It will be like “Stalin’s revenge” all over again.

    If the Huns dont care for this prejudicial gift, then the Allies will use it to pump out 4 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 tanks each and every turn. Now you go figure, man.

  • and a factory in France helps to reduce the effectiveness of any strat bombing of

  • @Adlertag:

    Usually a skilled german player will abandon France and move all units against Moscow ASAP. That is, if he want to win

    In fact, trading France is a good recipe to axis defeat: it gives allies 16 IPCs for free if UK takes it, and 22 if Italy is so stupid of “freeing” between UK and USA’s turn

    Remember, economy is on axis side in this edition, a new cool feature courtesy mainly due the crappy chinese status  :-P, so axis has absolutely no haste to take Moscow (or San Francisco if allies suicide and try ignore Japan - swarm of starting trannies). Pure economics will do the job better than any tank rush if axis prevents allies taking all the income possible

  • Abandon  France!


  • For UK, Norway sounds like a good spot. They can send in tanks to Russia fairly easily. Infantry would be too slow though. I don’t know if it is gamebreaking :S. In revised, Norway was directly connected with Russia. A Norway IC in revised was enough to make an attack on Nazi land


Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys