Anzac Shuck Into Europe

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@Stucifer I’m not following the data. Can you break it down for me?

[Stucifer]

@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.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@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.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@Stucifer Maybe I’m not understanding the data correctly.

[TheDesertFox]

@FranceNeedsMorePower

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.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@TheDesertFox I do think this would work well with a Naval build up off the coast of Persia.

[TheDesertFox]

@FranceNeedsMorePower

If you’d like to test that theory online, I could play the Axis and you could play the Allies

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@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.

[TheDesertFox]

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Works for me. We’ll setup the game over DMs

[Cornwallis]

@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.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@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.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@Cornwallis Do you think it’s an effective strategy currently we are debating the topic what are your thoughts on the strategy?

[TheDesertFox]

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Yes direct message was what I meant. And sending saved games is easiest

[Cornwallis]

@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.

[barnee]

@FranceNeedsMorePower

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.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@barnee Thanks for your thoughts! I do agree that maybe under very specific circumstances that this may be a possible option.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Cornwallis

France already does that. ANZAC is redundant in that case.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@FranceNeedsMorePower

The issue is if you do that there’s not enough frosting for the Pacific cake.

ANZAC going off into Europe means there’s less resources for the Pacific, which means that Japan has a better chance of winning.

As everyone else has said, it’s far more efficient for ANZAC to concentrate on the Pacific.

If you want more power in Europe, just have the US spend more money in the Atlantic. As a bonus they can cooperate with all the other American units that are likely to be in North Africa or Europe anyway.

Meanwhile, ANZAC sticking to the Pacific means shorter supply lines which means they can reinforce their troops more easily (without the cost of building more facilities). This is especially helpful to defend their capital.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@SuperbattleshipYamato France does what? I’m not understanding.

[FranceNeedsMorePower]

@SuperbattleshipYamato I love this cake frosting metaphor we have been using, it’s a banger.