Yes, inded for me that’s the only way I play with Italy, I build a IC in North Africa and build lots of troops there.
Norway? What for?
Better to spend the money on ships…
The IC in egypt would keep the Italy economy from growing at all. I mean for only 12 IPC for a one turn payment, than 6 more IPC a turn for two infantry or a tank and the Italians cant touch africa and the only national objective they can get is the Mediterranean one.
The IC in egypt would keep the Italy economy from growing at all. I mean for only 12 IPC for a one turn payment, than 6 more IPC a turn for two infantry or a tank and the Italians cant touch africa and the only national objective they can get is the Mediterranean one.
But can the UK spare the IPC’s? I assume your opponent is not threatening sea lion in the early game? In the late game Egypt has typically fallen or received enough reinforcements from South Africa to hold, and thus an IC isn’t needed.
Yea if germany isn’t threatening sea lion than ipc will be used elsewhere.
I often see IC’s in Rumenia.
Once, further in such a game (about the turn Moskou was gonna fall) i built a UK IC in Egypt (which just had been liberated) and a USA IC in Iraq (about the only place USA can build an IC).
Those combined (and with S.AF IC) were just enough to stop the Germans about to come from Russia.
How long would it take for the americans to get an IC in iraq?? just wondering because of how far it is away from them and because of that would be seemingly hard to conquer.
another thing, if the axis control moscow, they should control Stalingrad and leningrad, this would give them 8 Victory cities if they controlled paris and their starting VCs.
How long would it take for the americans to get an IC in iraq?? just wondering because of how far it is away from them and because of that would be seemingly hard to conquer.
another thing, if the axis control moscow, they should control Stalingrad and leningrad, this would give them 8 Victory cities if they controlled paris and their starting VCs.
Long! Even under ideal circumstances still never sooner then turn 5 or 6 (counting the turns for the initial US transport to sail around africa and even just reach iraq coast) and the local situation should be ideal (where USA can take Iraq from the Axis, and not lose it again).
(I think in my case it was around turn 9, and although i planned for this, it was only a few turns before that i could organise this, with enough allied troops to help USA grab Iraq and keep hold of it).
Planning for this seems senseless, but when the situation allows (which won’t hppen often, i know), it can be worth the trouble to try to make Iraq american.
Emm, don’t Axis have 7 VC’s? 4 in europe and 3 in russia?
Yea point made. Also you are correct that the axis will only have 7 VC if they control the european and russian VCs, but under normal circumstances Italy can take Egypt making it 8. I could see that plan working if the axis were to allow a war of attrition that they cant afford, because its the axis’ goal to win the game around turn 6-7. But sometimes they are forced and this would be a completely feasible to liberate a conquered russia.
Yea point made. Also you are correct that the axis will only have 7 VC if they control the european and russian VCs, but under normal circumstances Italy can take Egypt making it 8. I could see that plan working if the axis were to allow a war of attrition that they cant afford, because its the axis’ goal to win the game around turn 6-7. But sometimes they are forced and this would be a completely feasible to liberate a conquered russia.
Yea, i figured you might have included Egypt. It is crucial for the Allies to take Egypt back (and/or London, of course) before Russia falls (or, in extremis, the same turn).
And in that particular game i got it back just in time :-)
I should add that the Axis had horrible dice rolls half of that game
Yea the dice can definitely determine the winner in some cases. And its completely feasible for the english to take cairo back, if they spread the Mediterranean fleet apart than they should have a cruiser to bombard with, and they can blitz tank into egypt around turn 3 with enough to take it. This all depends on weather Italy did or did not reinforce their garrison at cairo.
Yea the dice can definitely determine the winner in some cases. And its completely feasible for the english to take cairo back, if they spread the Mediterranean fleet apart than they should have a cruiser to bombard with, and they can blitz tank into egypt around turn 3 with enough to take it. This all depends on weather Italy did or did not reinforce their garrison at cairo.
As you say, a lot depends on what italy does (and the dice, of course).
(In my case it was the USA that finished the job there, after the South African Brits had a disasterous attack over land. turn 7 or something. OOB game)
Yea, America can pretty much do anything it wants, with its 65 ipc income and all.
I saw the US build minor ICs in Iraq and Persia in order to liberate Russia. It worked really well. The US can actually land there in 4 turns if it goes South of Africa…assuming England still owns Gibralter.
after trying some time in playing and studying the game - actually i still did not try yet alpha2+ etc. -, i made the conclusion that only italy or the US should build an IC.
rock
I recently played my first alpha 2 game, and it did at much needed balance too the game buy lessening of the American war time economy. Also with the addition of infantry and fodder to the german war machine. Anyways, in a regular A&A Europe 1940, if the axis don’t have the game won on turn six is practically impossible. This is because on turn seven, even an incompetent USA player will have enough amassed force to destroy a province and gain a foothold in europe which is the end. The only chance Germany would have is if they control russia and have all their forces in france and central europe.
