Keeping Anzac under control.

@shadowhawk I did not realize that thank you for that advice! That is very wise.

I usually use the Aussies to trade islands with the Japaneses, while building mostly navy with the Americans. I’ve seen an Australian navy used very effectively in a couple of cases, anyone have better success with one versus the other? Which is better?

If ANZAC can afford to pull this off, then this shows that Japan is not putting pressure on ANZAC like it should be. The issue with ANZAC is that it is forced to play a defensive role for someone. ANZAC can make some offensive moves in early game if Japan doesn’t J1 on US. It’s navy supports the US fleet, it’s air power is supporting UK or USSR, and it’s land forces are defending the homeland. If ANZAC is able to afford bombers and carriers, either the Allies are in a major win swing or Japan ain’t doing its job.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Oh boy, you had to bring that one up again. We had a lengthy debate over that one. In the end it was proven (and certified) that you could indeed park your Japanese fleet in SZ 26.
Goofy=Yes
Illegal=No

It’s no longer up for debate. That one is settled.

Hi GHG, sorry for starting this and I accept the forums statement of beeing legal.
(Sidenote, at the same moment we established a house rule that says, the Japanese cannot do that on our table!  :-P)

@SouthsideCH:

As far as taking over friendly neutrals, why is Anzac not allowed to? Is this a error in the rulebook?
…
So it is an error of omission?

There is no exception for ANZAC regarding non-combat-moving into friendly neutrals.

What do you have in mind?

(ANZAC is not part of the Europe ruleset, so they are not listed in the Europe only rules. They are of course part of the Pacific (and Global) ruleset.)

@pokemaniac:

The big issue is ANZAC effectively producing at Persia. In any game ANZAC is extremely vital in wearing down Japan. The US can can-open destroyers screens and allow ANZAC to get through to take islands or attack small Japanese navies, and ANZAC ships and air are also crucial to the defense of the US fleet. Even if the US goes 100% Pacific, if it gets virtually 0 support from ANZAC (which will be the case if ANZAC is building in Persia) it will be hard pressed to advance on Japan.

Even ignoring the value of ANZAC’s units against Japan, the biggest problem is that ANZAC just can’t build well at Persia. If ANZAC is going for a Persia factory, they are going to be making 12 IPCs a turn after Japan declares war since they won’t be trading islands. That is 3 ANZAC mech in Persia. ANZAC units can only help to defend UK stacks, as opposed to UK units which can be used offensively as well. ANZAC also can’t afford to build 3 fighters in Persia ever, unlike the UK. Those fighter builds are often crucial to holding Moscow, while also giving the UK a lot of flexibility in the Mid East.

The UK can just build a factory in Egypt, but planes there take 2 turns to get to Moscow which can really be a problem.

In short I just don’t see any benefit in taking away a prime factory location from the UK and giving it to ANZAC who can barely make 3 cheap units a turn there. This also of course essentially removes ANZAC from the Pacific theatre, where it is sorely needed.

Brazil is the same concept. ANZAC Brazilians can’t really be used offensively anywhere, unlike a US or UK controlled Brazil. Plus it is sending ANZAC transports a long way from the front that they are most effective on.

ANZAC planes in Europe could be helpful, but by the time they could get to Europe it is unlikely that they’d have much to can-open and they would be spending a useless 3 turns or so in transit as opposed to 3 turns being used against Japan in some fashion.

Nice ideas, but I find ANZAC to just be best used to pester Japan and defend Australia if needed.

I completely agree with this, although I have never tried ANZAC in Persia. To me it seems like a hassle.
1. you need to protect UK transport from beeing blown up by italy 1. Does this imply no taranto?
2. ANZAC can activate Persia end of R2, This means factory R3 and units deployed end of round 4.
3. I like to have a UK factory there and shuffle UK fighters to Moscow easily if need be. Basically ANZAC units are not doing anything useful before R5ANZAC. Does not seem worthwhile to me. It is a nice noval, idea though

3 boats a turn on the Atlantic side or the pacific side?

Pacific.  He was speaking of the type of Navy that could get built up between Anzac and US with a late DOW.  Without pulling guys from the Atlantic, US can’t put a ton of guys on the Pacific in those first 3 turns.  Just to match the Japan Navy the US needs 2 more carriers, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer.  That’s  60 ipcs.  In my opinion, US needs more navy since they need to be the attackers.  That would require neglecting the atlantic almost entirely (which isn’t an awful idea depending on how good the German player is).  That also doesn’t take into account that Japan buys a Carrier and can load it without spending the 20-21 ipcs for fighters.  The Naval bases also allow for 3 more fighters to defend if used correctly.

Payback for being put on those convict ships.