Ok. You mean French West Africa. Seems you can save a turn that way.
Wow the sub Saharan route is actually feasible. You don’t need to worry about the safety of your transport and if you give Ethiopia to UK1 then your tank should be able to take Iraq with some air power without any difficulty. I think the factory in Iraq is additionally valuable because while you could give the money to UK, together you can produce 6 fighters a turn cycle in the Middle East. UK having a strong grip on the Middle East can save the Allies and I think it is unlikely they would have the production to support 2 factories and 6 units a turn, but the US could easily spend 30 in Iraq each turn.
This strategy would work because there is little opportunity cost to sending a tank US1 and it increases the number of units arriving in Moscow each turn further pushing that battle in the allies favor.
Additionally all of your buys US1-3 are relatively independent (with the exception of maybe some aircraft) of this strategy so while it does take a while to set up, the production of US fighters and UK fighters arriving in Moscow or Calcutta would make the difference in the late game. The remainder of your money could be dedicated to KJF or landings in Europe.
Furthermore, Iraq is connected to SZ 80 and could be used to produce subs for KJF
But again the problem is germany capturing the factory, something you definitely need to worry about
But again the problem is germany capturing the factory, something you definitely need to worry about
Germany can be getting to Caucasus G6, which is just as USA is about to produce its first units. Wow, it really is vulnerable! Assuming UK puts down a blocker in NW Persia, it will have one round of units to defend itself. So it needs to be saved by UK ground units and/or US planes from the mainland.
This idea is actually really interesting as a path for getting US planes to support the mid east and Moscow.
Ok. You mean French West Africa. Seems you can save a turn that way.
I always meant that, really? Wouldn’t you just say Morocco as the landing spot if just referring to North Africa?
It’s ok to just admit you were wrong :)
Now as far as this stategy is concerned, the way I see it, is only in the event of a J1; otherwise its too late. And all of the other stuff the allies do and react to has to be business as usual of course. But if the US can cheaply get Iraq, just think of the power they can plant there. By round 10 they could have 12 units produced there. Going to round 10 without the middle east falling is a very likely scenario; especially if the UK got Persia Round 1 and starting building right away. US can fly a few more planes there to beef up their foothold.
Back to the strategy, I would have thought a German player worth their salt would not wait in Bryansk for a US build up in Iraq when USA was pushing for it, unless they were going for a G6 Moscow take down I suppose. It’s one thing to hang around when the UK have a Persia factory and one in South Africa and a certain number of troops, being added to far more slowly than the Germans are building up but when the USA are also adding to that at 3/turn, you would need to hit that pretty quickly.
The only real way I can see it doing anything of use is if UK avoid the Persia factory for an Egypt one. That way, at least Germany can’t stage in NW Persia and threaten two factories. I guess that kind of fits in with the theory that it’s only useful with a J1 DOW. You can hit Ethiopia UK1, claim Persia UK2 and maybe even build an Egypt IC UK1.
Can Moscow stack Bryansk if Germany goes south with enough stuff to actually capture the middle east? Ive seen players go south but it usually results in German players having to step back. Sometimes other consequences result of course.
I guess if Germany wants Persia they can get it before Moscow falls no matter what. So it still makes sense to me for the UK to churn out units at Persia and Egypt. Then when Germany is too strong at nw Perisa, you make a strategic withdrawal to the US’s position at Iraq. Persia falls, but Iraq is stacked with troops. When amd where the allies counter attack is situation dictates of course.
Doesnt something give if Germany goes south with such a large stack that the Allies are just forced to give ground. Cant Russia move off Moscow or the Allies get away with a cheap landing? I usually see Germany going south before Moscow is taken getting punished somewhere else on the board.
I agree with that but I’m not clear how the allies turn that to their advantage? Many players feel that Germany heading south is optimal anyway. This just gives them an extra IC when they do so.
I agree with that but I’m not clear how the allies turn that to their advantage? Many players feel that Germany heading south is optimal anyway. This just gives them an extra IC when they do so.
Is the optimal German Barbarossa putting them in Rostov G5, Caucus G6, assuming they went south instead of straight to Moscow?
So a Germany could make Iraq on G8 if they couldn’t blitz through faster, meaning U.S. gets 1 or 2 turns of builds plus any planes of their own or UK reinforcements that were spared.
If Italy helps, they can make it quicker, though probably only G7, I presume.
Which to me means, if I’m Axis, all 3 countries would need to hit Moscow on round 5 or 6 before that factory (and whatever else UK was doing) utterly ended by attempts at dismantling Russia.
US into Iraq just seems foolish to me when Korea and Norway are more primed targets for US landings against direct Axis attacks. Iraq in my opinion is better suited for USSR and then UK, and everyone else on the third tier.
Is the optimal German Barbarossa putting them in Rostov G5, Caucus G6, assuming they went south instead of straight to Moscow?
It could be indeed be optimal to go to Rostov G5. If you do that, Italy should be able to take Caucasus then have mobile units on NW Persia G6, preventing any blockers from being used. Still has one round of US units being produced.
Actually, without Rostov G5 and a blocker being put down, you could get two rounds of units out of the factory, which is going close to viability.
Don’t forget that Japan could hit Persia/Iraq on J5 pretty easily, though not necessarily with a large force. Last game I did that, sending a carrier, cruiser, and a transport once there was a relatively weak U.S. response in the Pacific.
Japan in Middle East or Eastern Africa is easy to do since most of the UK Pacific Fleet gets moved to stop Italy.
Ah, the dream! USA in the Middle East!
Basically the first thing you see once you read major mics are only allowed on original terr.
Frankly I agree with Simon33. Wild waste of time and money to try to shuck 1 trn from Hawaii all the way to Persia, then build a mic, then build out of the mic, then take Iraq…. Ho Lee… that’s got to be like round 6 by then!
Give it to UK. They know what to do.
Hurrah!
Ah, the dream! Â USA in the Middle East!
Basically the first thing you see once you read major mics are only allowed on original terr.
Frankly I agree with Simon33. Â Wild waste of time and money to try to shuck 1 trn from Hawaii all the way to Persia, then build a mic, then build out of the mic, then take Iraq…. Ho Lee… that’s got to be like round 6 by then!
Give it to UK. Â They know what to do.
Yeah! US getting Iraq on round 6 is definitely way too late! I think all agree with that. What if the US got Iraq on round (1st round units are placed would be turn6)?
Do you think that’s still late to make a difference? I’ve only experienced this one game before. It never occurred to me that the US could get Iraq on turn 4 if Japan did a J1 DOW. I had no idea what my opponent was up to until I saw the US tank in French Equatorial Africa and the UK still hadn’t taken Iraq. He was setting up for landings while he gave Iraq to the US on turn 4. So I barely had enough punch to stay on Bryansk. Japan was his problem in the game. UK/US got pretty strong in the middle east to where the US could shift more spending to the Pacific.
We already went into iraq. It didnt turn out too well.
We already went into iraq. It didnt turn out too well.
If you paid attention to the last ten years, you’d know that’s a lie.
Huh? You’re talking about the real world? Let’s not get off topic.
Right Simon, or before we know it, the word “Iraq” is going to become censored in the A&A community because of modern politics.
I remember last year when I was playing Battlefield 1942, a player got kicked for having the word “Syria” in his name. Sheesh. :-( :-o And to think politics used to be a topic friends enjoyed arguing about in years past.
