True.
Anzac Shuck Into Europe
-
@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.
-
Works for me. We’ll setup the game over DMs
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower i´ve done it with anzac. Turn 1 with transport pick up the guy from NZ and move east. Turn 2 take brazil. Turn 3 go with two inf to gibraltar or marocco and buy a minor IC to churn out some subs or ground units. Send in destroyer and cruiser for protection.
This allows for an allied player that comes in between italy and germany. Not a game changer but can be anoying and it´s a cool game. -
@TheDesertFox What’s a “DM” is that like direct message? Like the chat room feature or something? I’m ready when your are. If we could just to simplify the process can we just send saved games back and forth. If not then we could do play by forum.
-
@Cornwallis Do you think it’s an effective strategy currently we are debating the topic what are your thoughts on the strategy?
-
Yes direct message was what I meant. And sending saved games is easiest
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower hm it depends on where the US is focusing. If US goes into europe then i would go Pacific with anzac and leave Brasil for the US. If US goes for japan then this can help putting some nuissance in europe.
But i think giving Persia to anzac is more efficient then. Gargantua has a youtube video called the Anzac Express. -
Well you certainly stirred up some discussion :)
I have heard of ANZAC in S America and seen it a few times in other’s games. None I’ve been a part of.
As crockett said and Fox and Stucifer as well, I think the best use of ANZAC resources are a “ANZAC First” policy.
Cornwallis also points out to where, situationally, it may offer the oppurtunity to do it.
Suggested Topics
