Actually, you would need 4 transports for America to exceed the output America can get from the IC in Norway. Even then, America can just pump tanks out of there and you can still build the extra transports if you want.
Yea by US3 you can already have an effective transport system into Europe that is much more efficient than a US IC in Norway. Sure it will help but its not necessary.
Of course there is the other option where the US TRNs into Africa instead and WALKS to Asia, then Europe.
You can’t get by without the Transports with or without an IC in Norway. If you do build it keeping it shouldn’t be a problem but the 15 IPCs are probably better put into TRNs. If you are going to Berlin via NOR, KAR, EE 3 units a round won’t be enough you will still need a secure system of TRNs. Might as well sink that 15 into keeping that safe.
Well I for one think that’s a great idea, I’ve never thought of it before, and in a close, long game, I think it’d be a great advantage, especially to Russia. It’s practically impossible for Germany to retake, or keep from Britain, and it’s got no real advantage to being taken by Germany. It’s an IC which is very useful for the allies, but almost useless for the Axis. Ingenius.
The only nation that should build ICS is Japan. Norway is to be left to the brtish, since they need teh 32 income to pump out 4 inf 4 arm a turn.
Yes, you CAN have a transport system going into Europe by US 3. Or you could have one going into Africa and an IC in Norway or one going into Europe and an IC in Norway.
I’m not positive, but I think Jennifer just threw in with the “yay ofr Norway IC crowd”. Awesome. I’m going to try it next game, the question becomes though: What will Britain attack in turn 1 now?
I’m not sold on this idea. One of the biggest advantages that the allies have is the “potential” strikes. Even if they never land at WEU, Germany has to prepare for that inevitability (stacking WEU to prevent it). Same with all the other German territories accessible from the baltic. If you buy an IC with US, you are going to be shipping fewer transports (because you won’t be able to afford to fill as many while producing at an IC in Norway). Fewer transport loads means that Germany can afford to shorten it’s stacks on each of those territories by a few units, and those units end up knocking on Russia’s doorstep. I just think you decrease the flexibility of the US and increase the flexibility of Germany.
For what? Remember for the price of the IC you can get 2 trns that can land pretty much the same amount of gear (3 arm vs. 2 arm & 2 inf), but the trns give you added flexibility to go not just to Norway, but to any other German baltic territory, and also give added defense to your fleet (yes you still need a fleet even with the IC) against possible axis attacks.
Rob
If I ahve 15 IPC’s extra to spend as the US, and it is alreay far enough into the game that i ahve taken Norway, that means I already have a nice TRN system in place.
So that 15 IPC is going to be a BOM to add punch to my existing TRN forces.
I’d rather have three tanks than a bomber.
If the US is transporting troops through the northern route then I’d leave Norway for the brits. But if the US is transporting troops through Africa then a Norway IC has some merrit. It allows the US to provide ground units to support the brits/russians on the northern flank without tying up transports. A few US tanks to exploit wholes opened by the brits can be very effective, and can be followed up with russian reinforcements all before germany has its turn.
In a tight game, the guarenteed 3 armor in Norway is nice. Your fleet can sink, by you cannot destroy an IC. Meanwhile, with an IC you have opened up some transports for other activity, such as Japan harrasment.
Buncha reasons not to.
If you build IC in Norway, first, that means a delay during which time Germany is taking those IPCs.
If you build IC in Norway with US, that means US must take. And then who reinforces, Russia? I doubt it. I think it more likely that Germany can and will retake to prevent the US IC. Which leads to the logical progression; UK takes, Japan can’t do anything about Norway, then US reinforces.
IC in Norway locks the Allies down. It becomes a point the Allies must protect. Germany can strategic bomb it. If US moves an AA gun over, that’s one less precious early game transport space.
If you have US transports, you can use those transports for a cumulative threat on W. Europe. An IC can’t do that. What is “cumulative”? You build transports US1, US2, US3. US4 you consolidate off E. Canada for major threat to W. Europe. Or whatever. Mess with Algeria. Lots of options with transports.
US transports also serve to soak up hits for the precious Allied navy.
PRACTICALLY, yeah, it’d be great to have a US IC in Norway. But there are just too many things Germany can do to mess with a Norway IC strat. I say - go for it if you CAN, but don’t try to go for a US Norway IC on the first turn. See if an opportunity comes up.
I don’t think Germany would focus largely on taking Norway. If Germany attacks Norway, they’ll of course win, because of the awesome power of the Germany airforce. But when it comes to the British counter-attack, it’ll be the exact opposite, because fo the grand power fo the British airforce. If it turns into an aggressive trading war, in which Germany, and the Western powers trade off Norway every turn, that means the Allies are winning, because those are ground forces not fighting the Russians. And I doubt Germany is going to use its bomber to strat bomb a target worth 3 IPCs. Yes, transports will soak damage for the American fleet, but it’s all in degrees. We’re talking about two transports, two hits, vs. having either a Northern European trap for Germany, or a logistical paradise, in which America can send three tanks a turn to the Eastern front, a front otherwise devoid of anything but American aircraft. If Russia is in the lurch, it’ll immediately help, if your fleet gets unlucky, it’ll lessen the blow, and after a few turns of deploying tanks, you’ll have a number of tanks at your disposal, to be backed up by your airforce, possibly also in Nroway, not a weak force, even on the Eastern front.
I don’t think Germany would focus largely on taking Norway. If Germany attacks Norway, they’ll of course win, because of the awesome power of the Germany airforce. But when it comes to the British counter-attack, it’ll be the exact opposite, because fo the grand power fo the British airforce. If it turns into an aggressive trading war, in which Germany, and the Western powers trade off Norway every turn, that means the Allies are winning, because those are ground forces not fighting the Russians. And I doubt Germany is going to use its bomber to strat bomb a target worth 3 IPCs. Yes, transports will soak damage for the American fleet, but it’s all in degrees. We’re talking about two transports, two hits, vs. having either a Northern European trap for Germany, or a logistical paradise, in which America can send three tanks a turn to the Eastern front, a front otherwise devoid of anything but American aircraft. If Russia is in the lurch, it’ll immediately help, if your fleet gets unlucky, it’ll lessen the blow, and after a few turns of deploying tanks, you’ll have a number of tanks at your disposal, to be backed up by your airforce, possibly also in Nroway, not a weak force, even on the Eastern front.
Sure, you don’t have to believe me. Go for a US IC in Norway.
I’m going to say again - a US IC in Norway is great IF YOU CAN GET IT. But it is not easy to get a Norway IC unless the German player is REALLY horrible. It is far easier for UK to take Norway and US to reinforce.
Your own words: “I don’t think Germany would focus largely on taking Norway . . . a logistical paradise, in which America can send three tanks a turn” In other words, you yourself are saying taht the Germans aren’t going to try to take Norway in spite of the fact that a US IC in Norway is very good for the Allies. i.e. the German player sucks.
I’m going to have to side with those who think this is a bad idea.
I think it is safe to assume that the IC, IF it is built, should be built after the SZ5 fleet is toast and US has already established a nice TRN network.
However, I would not be inclined to let Norway in German hands that long, which means either UK will take it, ot US has already sent a minimum of 1 TRN north so that they can take Norway early. And that reduces teh strength of intial Allied counters in Africa, and leaves any Allied fleet in SZ12 a bit mroe vulnerable.
Okay paintbrush, I absolutely see your point now. The value of Norway to the Allies makes it valuable to Germany. You’re sounding alot like an economic historian when it comes to market trends actually. But here’s the trick: Isn’t this another trap for Germany? If Germany invests heavily (and the only way to invest in trading/defending Norway would have to be heavily) in Norway, those are resources not going to Southern Europe (region not territory), which Russia could capitalize on. I see it as a valuable way for the US to establish a new front with Germany, and whenever the US trades troops with Germany the Allies win.
@ncscswitch:
I think it is safe to assume that the IC, IF it is built, should be built after the SZ5 fleet is toast and US has already established a nice TRN network.
However, I would not be inclined to let Norway in German hands that long, which means either UK will take it, ot US has already sent a minimum of 1 TRN north so that they can take Norway early. And that reduces teh strength of intial Allied counters in Africa, and leaves any Allied fleet in SZ12 a bit mroe vulnerable.
I’d agree. The IC shouldn’t replace your transport fleet, it should compliment it. Maybe getting 6 transports instead of 8 transports and an IC or 8 transports instead of 10 transports and an IC is the route to go.
And yes, it’s nice for England to have as well, but really, England only needs 18 IPCs to fill 3 transports. England + Canada is 12 IPC right there. Most smart Jap players won’t hit Australia or New Zealand until later in the game, that’s 4 more to 16 IPC and Madagascar is also usually untouched for a long time. So England’s got 17 of 18 IPCs already, usually. Add that to as yet onconquered middle east and Africa and you’ve exceeded the 18 IPCs needed to fill 3 transports. (4 transports is a waste, IMHO. England can only build 8 units, and I want airpower as well as land power.) And yes, 6 infantry < 3 Infantry 3 Artillery < 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor I know that. I’m stating the MINIMUM not the OPTIMUM.
Meanwhile, America with +2 North Africa and +3 Norway is at 43 IPC a round, making up for China/Sinkiang’s loss. 5 Infantry, 5 Artillery, and savings for more ships or aircraft.
Why do I like American/Russia as my sledge hammers with British reinforcements?
A) They work back to back.
B) America just has the shear power of assets every round. (28 IPC just for the USA.)
C) England makes such a nice between attack force that can mobilize to assist Russian stacks or America stacks before Japan can go.
