Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:46:43 -0500 
From: Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A: IC for Allies?
	<1e787mINNpl4@gap.caltech.edu>

keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>emullins@triton.unm.edu (Eric Mullins) writes:
>
>>Lots of people like to put an IC in India for the Allies.  I fail to
>>see the benefit of such a plan.  For one thing, no matter what you do
>>to defend it, Japan can take it out without being particulary lucky,
>>then he has a nice IC which is essentially a 30 IPC swing since he
>>didn't have to buy it, and the allies did.  I could go into how silly
>>it is even if the allies manage to keep it, but that isn't in the
>>realm of possibility, so I won't.
>
>Wel, it is very probably.  The allies can quickly get a bunch of Infantry
>there (from Russia and the US) as well as a number of fighters.  Britian
>will transport in some infantry, and then build either fighters or infanty.
>What ends up happening is that Britian has an elite little fighting force
>that can swoop in, inflict damages (if Japan hasn't massed effectively)
>and the retreat before any infantry are lost.  This effectively forces
>Japan to mass a huge force to defeat the allied presence.  If he doesn't,
>he won't be able to take anything at all, because Britain will strike.
>
>Japan can't really attack India at all until the second turn (he can do it
>earlier, but he won't have enough ground troops there to win--especially if
>Britian has used the transport to pick up two guys from the Mid-East and
>Africa.).  By then, the Russia troops will be there (along with the Russian
>fighters), and many British infantry and fighters.  Basically, it is not
>all that difficult for Britain to defend India for at least 4 turns or so.
>
>>Maybe you think an IC in India slows down Japan somewhat.  The only
>>problem is that after he takes out India, he progresses quicker than
>>usual thanks to his new IC.  In addition, if the UK wastes 15 IPC'S
>>on an IC, he's slowing down the Allied effort on Germany, so I don't
>>think that anything good comes from building an IC in India.  Remember,
>>you can put the same force in India regardless of whether or not you
>>build an IC there.
>
>That't not true.  How would you expect to get the new British troops in there?
>With an IC, you can just build them there.  How long does it take to get
>allied infantry to India without an IC?

True Japan can not attack India till turn 2.  There is no big rush, it
only pops out 3 units a turn, you can strat bomb it at no risk unless
they build an AA gun (or move over a Russian one, then bomb Russia).

Russia putting a lot of inf in there?  Why doesn't Germany take Karelia
away on turn 2 or 3?  The Japanese are using transports.  They can
either dump lots of inf to take India, or put them in Manchuria and rush
towards Russia.  I don't see the three inf per turn making India so much
harder to take when Japan pumps out 10 inf, and has 4 fighters and a
bomber to attack with anyway, but if the allies really put lots of
effort into India, the plan is Japanese inf run along the northern route
towards Russia, Germany takes Karelia.  Since Russia has no income, I
think it is in big trouble.

Normally I see the allies attacking Japan on turn 1, letting it retake
and advance the next few turns, then (when UK and US have Germany under
control and Karelia safe), Russia takes its army and fights Japan while
US + UK take Africa then crush Germany.


Erik
---=
Lines: 26