IC placement

thanks for the reply

quite simply, transports have to be defended, and the allies can put have in range alot of threatening airpower before japan’s second turn…  and every ship that’s left defending them reduces your ability to cheaply destroy the various allied fleets that might be making a mess in the pacific on turn one.

Other than that, the additional transports allow for 6 units a turn, similarly to the IC’s.  The additional transports give you the ability to grab guys more quickly from the islands, as well as the ability to push on india and africa faster and harder.  But each of these require some tradeoffs (ideally, mass troops in manchuria, but if india looms you may have to deal with that, slowing the flow of 6 units/per turn.

transports assuming a factory build later also ends up reducing the flow of fast moving armor, if that’s necessary.

Don’t get me wrong, i’m a big fan of transports, but they have their drawbacks too.

@TimTheEnchanter:

Tanks are STRONG!!!

(and you can only get two of them from EI to asia each turn!)

C-SUB representing!  In da house!

I’ll build two Japanese Industrials on the Mainland in one of two situations:

Most Likely - I expect a Kill Japan First allied strategy.  Either because of National Advantages selected, or because of previous experience with the person or because of how Russia and England developed their turns or all of the above.  In this case, I cannot expect to have transports and surface ships available for moving units from Mainland China to the Asian sea board, so the complexes are worth their weight in gold.

Least Likely - I plan to engage in a Kill America first strategy.  Again, I won’t have transports and surface ships to protect them for long, so I’ll need the complexes eventually.

Australian IC is a great idea
and personally i favor it
i can say its my standard move, altough i must say UK play depends( a lot or not ) upon the G1 move

so Australia IC can be put in round 1

even in round 2 if its a surprise

but i agree with Emperor Mollari without USA going forcefully in Pacific, UK forces down there are doomed

and altough this strategy is great, if Australian IC falls to the Japanese, it leads Allies to almost certain defeat, since UK spent a lot of IPC on their fleet here and (partially) egnored European theatre, so overall

i would say anyone go for it

and dont be dissapointed if it fails, even a few times, find a way to improve the strategy, it can be done, but it requires a good coordination, USSR and USA are (very) important here altought it doesnt seem that way on the first look

thats my view upon this…

@Perry:

I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.

UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.

Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.

I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.

As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.

Bah, I’ve seen 1 inf destroy 9 inf and a tank.  (Guy kept saying “he’ll eventually die!”)

Hmmm, well I guess it is not more effective, you’re right. I just went and looked at the numbers and by the end of round 6 the transport method would only yield you 12 units, while the factory method would yield you (assuming you use original 2 transports) 4 on round 2, 3 on round 3, 4, 5, 6. The method I would be advocating would require two extra transports to shuffle down to brazil, which obviously costs substantially more than the factory and only allows you to get 1 more unit there a turn.

I think I just have an aversion to having a factory around not doing anything later in the game, but in your case it would definitely be worth it. In every other case I would definitely suggest against a brazilian IC, but for the smallest amount of IPCs I guess the factory in brazil would have to be the way to go, assuming you just want to use the original EUS transports.