But why do that when you can get American units into Europe through Morrocco?
@Cornwallis You still need to have the US build a naval base in Mexico or Panama; otherwise the US can’t get its units from the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast Atlantic in one move.
I also don’t think the ‘unload in the Congo’ scheme works at all. The Congo borders Sea Zone 70, which is a minimum of 5 moves from any US departure point. Similarly, French Equatorial Africa is on Sea Zone 82, which is a minimum of 4 moves from any US departure point. The furthest to the southeast you can get in one naval move from anywhere in North America is just French West Africa, which is a lousy place to be unloading slow movers.
The Axis “Dark Skies” strategy of using subs and bombers to deny the Allies access to Sea Zone 91 (west of Gibraltar) is powerful, but I don’t think heading for sub-Saharan Africa is a reasonable or effective way of countering it. Instead, when you’re ready to have the US cross the Atlantic, I’d recommend building about 8 US fighters, flying them to Iceland, and from Iceland to both England and Scotland. The UK can build destroyers and one naked carrier in Sea Zone 109 (so 2 more US fighters can land there). If necessary the UK can also build a destroyer in SZ 110 to block any attack by a German Baltic Fleet. The resulting defensive stack will have 8 fighters, a carrier, and a couple of destroyers – more than enough to inflict unbearable losses against any plausible German heavy bomber force. Even if the Germans ‘win’ the resulting battle, they will be left without enough air force to take Moscow. If the Germans lose the battle or don’t take the bait, then you can follow up by building US transports, moving them to SZ 106 (Canada) and then SZ 109 (England). They can shuck back and forth between Canada and England until you’re ready for a landing; this is basically the historical Allied strategy.
I fail to see why anyone would build a NB in the Gulf of America.
While it would be economically possible, I just see no benefit to a 89 SZ NB in any situation.
If Axis have control of GIB, you could shuck fast movers, albeit only one per Trprt, to F WAF and back to SE Mexico as Cornwallis suggested.
Might be best to just save the Inf that would ride along and let them concentrate until you can hit GIB in force.
I just see no use for a NB in 89. Doesn’t really do you any good going to the Pacific either.
@barnee I’m not recommending a naval base in Mexico; I’m just pointing out that Cornwallis’s plan of repeatedly shucking units between Mexico and southwest Africa seems to imply the presence of a naval base there. I agree with you that such a naval base is ill-advised.
I think there is very little point in shucking fast movers alone to west Africa – the extra defensive value in, e.g., Cairo is not worth the cost of the transports, let alone the naval base. America starts with only one transport in the Atlantic. There’s no sense in building up a fleet of American transports unless and until you’re ready to seriously challenge a sea zone that can actually put real pressure on the Axis.
If for some reason you really need to defend Cairo, American fighters will be more efficient. For example, if you build 3 transports on turn 1, then you have a fleet of 4 transports, meaning you can shuck 2 fast movers to West Africa per turn. You admittedly start with 4 mechs that aren’t urgently needed elsewhere; let’s say you buy 2 more mechs and 2 tanks to give them a bit of offensive punch. So now over the course of turns 1-4 you can ship your 6 mechs and 2 tanks to West Africa, and they will arrive in Cairo by turn 6. This costs the US $21 for the transports, $15 for the naval base, and $20 for the extra mechs/tanks – a total of $56 to get 8 hit points into Cairo that defend with 24 pips.
Alternatively, you could just build 6 fighters for $60. That gets you 6 hit points into Cairo by turn 4 (reach West Africa on turn 3) that defend with 24 pips. You arrive notably earlier with a force that’s very nearly as powerful as the mechs/tanks, plus your starting mechs are still available to fill up transports going to, e.g., Hawaii or to prepare for a later assault on Gibraltar.
All that said, one of the many advantages of a Middle Earth strategy is that you can safely withdraw from Cairo into Sudan/Jordan. It’s not urgent for the British to hold Cairo if the Allies don’t build a factory there. The UK can build 6 new units/turn (from S. Africa & Persia) that can attack Cairo, plus most likely some support coming in from India, Malta, the troops you divert to clean up Ethiopia, and so on. By contrast, Italy is very unlikely to be able to get anything like 6 land units per turn down into the region while also defending against, e.g., American subs. Over time, the balance of power will shift back toward the Allies and you will force the Italians back out.
@TheDesertFox if axis leave that door open then you go for morocco but our German players on G1 buy fleet and the occasional bomber and sub to keep allies at arms length so Japan can expand. This was just one idea to prevent that arms race but still help UK and you can invest in pacific.
@Argothair no you don´t from Mexico it´s 2 spaces to gibraltar or West Africa.
I said West africa, not Congo. It is within range of the US and out of range of german subs. Total cost 21 IPC on tpt and 6 for 2 inf… you already have the mechs and 2 inf.
@Argothair you don´t need a naval base there bc it´s 2 spaces away from moroco or W Africa. Buying 2 or 3 extra transports is not that an investment if later on (turn 5 ot 6) you stop chucking to W Africa but converg with a built up allies fleet on gibraltar. This is just in the early game when you are at war but are not strong enough to go for gibraltar. You have the fast movers in the US, so why not use them for what they are made…
@Cornwallis I think there are a few different proposals all being discussed at once. Let me try to be clearer about why each of them falls short of being a successful strategy.
(1) is not a bad idea, but it’s also not really a full strategy – it’s just a way to squeeze out a little bit of extra defensive power with some more-or-less available units. The mechs can drive to Cairo, but this means your early transports aren’t available to ferry units out of Brazil, the starting mechs aren’t available to garrison Hawaii, and you’re vulnerable to having your shuck disrupted if the Italian fleet comes west through Gibraltar or a couple of German subs head south, because now you have transports off the coast of West Africa that can’t easily escape back to a safe sea zone. The benefits of this plan are minor, the costs of this plan are minor, and even if you use this plan, you still need a strategy for what the UK is going to do with most of its units and cash.
(2) is a terrible idea because the infantry will be stuck in West Africa with nothing useful to do for too much of the game. The US really needs to be working toward gaining control of the sea zones around Gibraltar and London, or else it needs to be pushing back Japan and retaking the money islands. Stacking troops up in West Africa gives the illusion of progress without accomplishing any of these goals.
(3) is not possible – there are no sea zones bordering the Congo that the US can reasonably reach by sailing from North America.
Personally I think if we were dealing with a scenario where Germany had a fleet and some bombers, I would build that same bridge acrossed the Atlantic but instead of going to central Africa I would have it run from Quebec to either Scotland or England. I know this strategy isn’t exactly new but to me it feels the safest mostly because the hypothetical german fleet in question should be in the Med and even if they have a lot of bombers, enough carriers/fighters + 3 fighters to scramble from the UK (and Scotland i think) will dissuade a German expedition to try and sink your convoys.
@Cornwallis I do enjoy this Strategy and I think it would work really really really well for a really really long game. Or a “full length game”. I do think this will work very well in conjunction to the ME strategy.
Like I said earlier I have looked into transporting troops from east coast to west/central Africa. I have never really tried it because I think the consequences will be too big elsewhere. Once the shuttle is established you need 6 transports and this will allow you to put 2 fast movers and 2 infantries to French equatorial Africa each round: You need two transports in 89, 3 transports in 87 and 1 transport in 82. You build 2 inf and 2 fast movers in central USA each round and move to Mexico area bordering sz 89. Then you have 4 transports (2x2) shuttling 89/87 and 2 transports (1x1) shuttling 87/82 with the 2 infantries. Of course you have some starting units you can start with, but once you buy 2 infantries and 2 fast movers it takes 5 rounds for the fast movers to get to Egypt and 6 rounds for the infantries. This is the main reason why I have never tried, because it takes for ever.
But you also need more stuff: You need to control Gibraltar with a three-fighter scramble with at least a destroyer in 92 or 91, probably both. This will prevent axis sub from 93 to kill 87. Likewise, you need to control Morrocco and Algeria. Bombers from W-Germany or southern France can land here after killing 87. Or if axis control Algeria you have the same problem. Finally, you need to control the Atlantic Ocean so there are no enemy subs. In summary you need some navy and some planes.
So, what does this achieve, at best little, I think. Yes, you will get a nice number of American units to Egypt/middle east, easily 20 American land units by round 9 or 10. Like pointed out it’s possible to combine with Middle Earth and this will provide an allied fortress in the middle east. So, it can be a way to secure Cairo from axis take over and then prevent the win
Most likely there will be no pressure on Germany on the western front, and this will mean Russia is captured at the latest on G8. You also need to look out for a late sea lion. Finally, the question becomes if USA has enough resources to contain Japan. I don’t know.
