Maybe a better idea is to load one of the Egypt Anzac Infantries on the Egypt transport and unloading in Persia on Anzac 2?
Yes this is what I meant. UK transports the Malta units to Egypt, then 1 ANZAC infantry loads onto the transport. ANZAC gets Persia turn 2 (and also Brazil with 1 infantry transported from New Zealand). Turn 3 build an IC and then start building infantry there. This requires more investment by USA into defending Australia but short of having an American IC in the middle east (almost impossible until very late game) this might be the next best thing?
Maybe a better idea is to load one of the Egypt Anzac Infantries on the Egypt transport and unloading in Persia on Anzac 2?
Yes this is what I meant. UK transports the Malta units to Egypt, then 1 ANZAC infantry loads onto the transport. ANZAC gets Persia turn 2 (and also Brazil with 1 infantry transported from New Zealand). Turn 3 build an IC and then start building infantry there. This requires more investment by USA into defending Australia but short of having an American IC in the middle east (almost impossible until very late game) this might be the next best thing?
I think it can work, but if the Japanese player is a strong one, I think this is a risky approach since you likely need Anzac ground builds to work against Japan. The US can easily spend everything in the Pacific without causing much harm against a good Japanese player.
Might be better for US help UK Europe neutralize Italy, then UK Europe helps against Japan.
Have not thought about Brazil though
If memory serves, Anzac is one move from Brazil (from NZ). I’ve seen it done, it really didn’t change the outcome though.
Have not thought about Brazil though
If memory serves, Anzac is one move from Brazil (from NZ). I’ve seen it done, it really didn’t change the outcome though.
It’s two moves. Once in a while I’ve had ANZAC take Brazil, but never with an eye towards having them spend the money outside the Pacific. It feels like a bad idea to do so if Japan hasn’t been neutralized yet.
