@shadowhawk I can’t argue with that.Take out india 1st and then go toward Egypt and middle east to obtain victory on the Europe side.
Anzac Shuck Into Europe
-
@crockett36 Alright, would you suppose that I should use triple a for that?
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower yes you should and or could and also look up sneaking car pants and not intuitive but declaring war something like they’re doing all this combat action and you can’t stop them until the WDOW, which happens actual combat. It’s really funky silly I am in my opinion.
-
@crockett36 sticky Carl
-
@crockett36 I understood nothing you said, sorry. Could you re-explain without metaphors please. Thanks. :)
-
Sneaky Karl is a way UK & ANZAC can ‘abuse’ the turn order and create a hostile sea zone so that Japan cannot load transports. Typically you would exploit this in SZ37 off French Indochina.
Deep dive into the Sneaky Karl:
https://youtu.be/Pkj_9K3lfQk?feature=sharedThat's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose.
-
@crockett36 said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:
@FranceNeedsMorePower I think it is imperative that Anzac stay in its lane in its ocean PTO.
This. If America already has the ability to get ground units into Europe as early as turn 4, why’s ANZAC going out of their way to build a base on Brazil? That’s equivalent to icing on an already frosted cake.
-
@Stucifer Ah I will have to look into this thanks for clarifying what he meant by that.
-
@TheDesertFox said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:
That’s equivalent to icing on an already frosted cake.
My point exactly, extra frosting = extra yumminess.
Sorry got side tracked anyway, I think having a consistent force of Anzac troops coming in just makes your landings even more secure than before. Personally I think this is better than Anzac doing submarine gorilla warfare.
-
Well personally as crazy as it sounds I like to build an aircraft carrier as ANZAC and then rendezvous with my fellow British in the Indian Ocean. ANZAC starts off with 3 fighters and can be making up to 20 IPCs a turn why not lean into that?
-
@crockett36 said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:
@FranceNeedsMorePower I think it is imperative that Anzac stay in its lane in its ocean PTO.
Can’t agree more. ANZAC has very limited income and production capabilities. If they are making 20 per round due to NOs Japan is going to be in serious trouble. They can build 2 subs and a destroyer each round and assist the US deep in the Pacific. This is far more effective than shucking infantry into Africa or Gibraltar.
One of the #1 rules of Axis & Allies is to use overwhelming force. For that reason it is better to have most of your income and units being controlled by as few powers as possible. Germany at 80 IPCs/round and Italy at 3 is far more dangerous than Germany at 53 IPCs/round and Italy at 30.
The Allies income is already very distributed, which when coupled with generally longer supply lines, lowers the effect of their income lead. If you take Brazil with ANZAC you are:
- not projecting any threat of trading islands or securing objectives with that ANZAC transport in the Pacific;
- operating a very weak power far away from their power base
If you continue down this path, what do you do with the ANZAC infantry if you get them to Gibraltar or Africa? You need artillery, and preferably heavy air support, to go on the offensive.
Spending 34 IPCs (factory, harbor, transport) to then spend 6 IPCs per round shucking 2 ANZ infantry into a theater where they have no ability to project power is a complete misuse of resources and will cost you the game against a solid opponent. If you spent the same amount in the Pacific, you could have an additional fighter and 4 subs, plus another sub each round; as @crockett36 mentioned having a sub count higher than Japan’s destroyer count and the opportunity to shotgun them out to start convoying can do some serious, serious damage to the Japanese economy.
-
Would you rather have 10 ANZ infantry in Europe or this?
That's 'cause a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose.
-
@TheDesertFox I just do see any purpose in an Anzac Carrier. Anzac should spend there money on other ships to join the U.S. fleet it’s not cost effective. The British fleet is domed anyway unless you use my ME variant. Hmm I suppose that may actually work only with my strategy though.
-
@Stucifer I’m not following the data. Can you break it down for me?
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower to get 10 ANZAC infantry into, say, Normandy. You need 5 turns of transport shucks from Brazil with a harbor and the factory. 64 IPCs. That’s the same as 9 subs and a fighter.
9 subs spread out into a few convoy zones can easily do 12-15 convoy damage (avg per sub is 2 IPCs)
To get an extra 10 US infantry into Normandy in 5 rounds you only spend 44 (2 transports and 10 inf), and you have combined weight of all the other US forces to actually threaten Germany on offense.
-
@Stucifer Never mind I get it. So you’re saying would you rather have Japan lose 13 to convoy disruption or have 30 IPC’s worth of material in Europe. I’m taking the the frosted cake with extra frosting. Meaning the 10 troops.
-
@Stucifer Maybe I’m not understanding the data correctly.
-
Having even a single fully loaded aircraft carrier with a destroyer escort means that Japan would have to commit a moderate amount of resources to sinking that fleet. If the fleet gets sunk then great, they will most certainly sink Japanese vessels along with it and thus weakening the fleet for America to move in. Having a fully loaded carrier or better yet 2 means you can actually start making your way to the money islands and taking them back from Japan. If Japan attempts to sink said fleet, as I said thats Americas chance to move in.
-
@TheDesertFox I do think this would work well with a Naval build up off the coast of Persia.
-
If you’d like to test that theory online, I could play the Axis and you could play the Allies
-
@TheDesertFox Let do that. I’m Debating if we should use this post or not I think we should just because it relates to my topic. Let’s do no bid and no tech.
Suggested Topics
