In Axis and Allies, should the UK Build a factory in Australia?

Question

Compared to South Africa and India, Australia, is, or can be made safer from, Axis occupation. It also has the potential to be "relevant." This may be more true in the newer versions, such as AA revised, where there are four Asian "victory" cities, How does the introduction of victory cities in Axis & Allies revised change gameplay and strategy? but is somewhat true even in the second edition, with which I am more familiar.

In this variation, I'd move the fighter from India to Australia, and the Indian transport with one of two infantry to Australia. Here, I could make a case for leaving NO infantry in India, in line with a question by another gamer. When retreating from a compromised territory should you always leave one infantry? But I prefer to leave one in India on the theory that it would tie up a Japanese offensive unit (a fighter or battleship) that might attack otherwise be used to attack Australia. Otherwise, the transfer of the UK fighter and infantry more or less safeguards the continent from amphibious attack by Japanese infantry in e.g., the Philippines supported by the battleship located in the Caroline islands.

There are two plausible plans that follow a first turn build of a factory.

Under plan 1, the second turn build would be an aircraft carrier and an infantry, followed by an "island hopping" campaign with the fighter (on the carrier) and amphibious infantry against the East Indies, Borneo, and New Guinea, followed by the Philippines. This increases the UK's IPCS and reduces Japan's.

Under plan 2, I'd build infantry and another transport or two for a shuttle service to Madagascar and ultimately Africa (with one transport as a "bridge" between that island and the continent. This would be a particularly worthwhile strategy if the US builds a factory in Brazil. In Axis and Allies, Should the U.S. Build a "Factory" in Brazil?

If you are the type of UK player that likes to build a factory in South Africa or India, would you build it in Australia instead? If you don't like to build those factories because of the possibility that the Axis can capture them, and make them Axis assets, would Australia's greater safety tip the balance in favor of this strategy? And perhaps the answer does matter from one edition of the game to another?

Answer 1

I would also echo the India first, mainly to fortify Asia from Japanese expansion on the mainland (what else is there, some infantry in China?). Australia is isolated and would need to build vulnerable transports to move anything to island hop.

In games that I've played, the second factory has depended on what the enemy has done in the first two turns or so. If Germany makes a hard push for Africa, I look more to build in India. If Japan makes a hard push in Asia and is successful in taking China, South Africa is more my choice. And if by sheer (bad) luck Germany takes over most of northern Africa and Japan is powering through Eastern Asia, then I look at Australia and try to get the US player to help put pressure on Japan's Eastern flank.

Answer 2

I would agree with the previous sentiments.

If you attempt to use Australia as a base of operations, you are putting yourself at the same disadvantage as Japan, (needing transports) but with fewer resources. Also, with little effort, Japan could bring a large invasion force on turn 3 that would take Australia, and hold it, thereby providing them with a much-needed base to launch a southerly strike against the Western U.S.

Stay in India, as it is highly unlikely that Japan will attempt to take Australia as you will be threatening his Asian holdings.

I speak only to the original A&A. Newer versions allow for Australia to be a more formidible opponent than a simple desert island with a couple of infantry.

Answer 3

There is far greater spend then an IC in Australia (given it's remote location and subsequent need for transports to make an impact).

1) IC in India, just as temporary defense

OR

2) all spend is UK focused with Fighters to defend Russia or Bombers to take away from Germany, and transports to support US shuck-shuck once they put a Battleship/Aircraft Carrier into UK.

Answer 4

The correlation of forces in the initial set-up implies allied strategy. Merely as a survival tool, you must assume a capable German player. The position of allied combat strength demands a concentration of forces against Germany. The allies have the advantage in that all three can attack Germany before she can respond. So, my answer is; don't build a factory anywhere on the first turn. Instead, Britains first turn buy should be a carrier and a transport and save 4 IPCs. During America's turn, the eastcoast fighter lands on the carrier and if the transport on the coast survived it takes two inf. to Britain. This will leave a minimum of 1d for 1, 1d for 3, and 1d for 4 occupying the British sea zone. It will cost the Germans dearly to eliminate this fleet. Using this as the anchor for the shuck-shuck allows the Americans to purchase more land units and not have to spend as much on warships. As the allied strength in the Atlantic grows, the British will be able to transport troops to Africa as well as providing for the scouring of the Med and the prep for final invasion of Germany. A minimum of investment on the part of the Empire to support it's overseas dominions in the early game, allows for an increased ferocity with which to beat back the Japanese. Especially as you will have undistracted support from both the other allies. The Japanese player will run rampant over all sorts of strategicaly secondary territories, and will have a fine time placing flags all over the map. Once the allies crush Germany, Japan can not by herself win against all three allies. So; "Germany First!" is not even a choice, it is strategic necessity.

Answer 5

I would say no and advise to consider India instead