A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.
Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.
Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.
Hi PainState,
From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.
There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â
Building mIC's in both Egypt and Persia?
-
Well, I usually build in London on UK1, build the factory in Egypt and activate Persia on UK2, and build the factory in Persia on turn 3. Then I build something like 3 tanks in Persia, 2 fighters in Egypt to send into Russia, depending on if I have my NO or not.
-
Don’t mind the Egypt factory, when you are UK and want to keep your NO bonus you really should put some effort into keeping Malta.
-
Don’t mind the Egypt factory, when you are UK and want to keep your NO bonus you really should put some effort into keeping Malta.
What is the most common use for Malta Narvik?
-
@aequitas:
Don’t mind the Egypt factory, when you are UK and want to keep your NO bonus you really should put some effort into keeping Malta.
What is the most common use for Malta Narvik?
Well, you need to hold it (and Cyprus and Gibraltar) to get the British NO. As for the units there, the fighter is usually used at Taranto and the inf may be used for an amphibious assault later.
-
Don’t mind the Egypt factory, when you are UK and want to keep your NO bonus you really should put some effort into keeping Malta.
That would not be very cost effective if you are trying to hold Malta.
-
@aequitas:
What is the most common use for Malta Narvik?
That depends how many Pretzels your friends have had when the Malta action takes place. Too many of those and Malta is barely used by UK as a landing spot after the infamous Taranto Raid. Next turn Italy ignores it and go full bore Egypt. Then USA join the game, add some turns, times go by and maybe the forgotten infantry there is used to reinforce Italy at the late game. But as I said, I don’t know your friends.
But if you ask, not for the common use by the average casual player, but for the ultimate use, by the skilled and brilliant player, how it should really be, how the top ladder player use Malta, the answer is simple. The main purpose of Malta is being a fat bait. If the Italian player is not too drunk, he will recognize Malta as a vital spot to deny the UK maintenance bonus. Of course Cyprus, the Big Gib or Alex will do the job too, but they are far too exposed to be defended, so he will for sure try to take Malta as a priority target nr 1. This will not surprise the skilled UK player, on the contrary, he will expect it and set up Malta for a killing zone. The Italian player will be the one taken by surprise when his fleet is sunk.
But, to set up a proper decent killing zone, UK need a factory not too far away from the action. Egypt would be a rational choice, since newly placed units can reach both Malta and Cyprus. Egypt would be a bold choice too, since it is so hard to protect. But real men don’t use protection, they gamble, so Egypt it should be. And if Italy do capture Egypt with a free factory, maybe they lure themselves to buy a lot of expensive stuff there, money that could be put to better use in the decisive Eastern Front.
-
Thank you Narvik for your explanation!
-
And if Italy do capture Egypt with a free factory, maybe they lure themselves to buy a lot of expensive stuff there, money that could be put to better use in the decisive Eastern Front.
I would argue some money spent in Egypt is usually well spent for Italy. Especially if you can keep your Italian fleet alive in the Med. Egypt is worth at least 2 IPCs/turn, perhaps 7 if you don’t have Gib (which is a big problem in of itself but outside the scope of this conversation). Perhaps it’s even your gateway to a few extra IPCs from african territories.
Building some cheap units there per turn (not even necessarily three every turn) doesn’t cost you much in the long run, but it does hurt Britain. Furthermore, if Britain has an Iraqi (or Persian, but see my previous post) mIC going to help out Russia, you’ve just now made them think about what to do instead of just automatically driving north.
What expensive things would they buy that are wasted? Planes? They are mobile enough to go wherever they need to go, provided you’re thinking one turn ahead. Boats? They, too, are something you could normally build closeby as well. The worst thing they could build, then, would be 3 armor per turn. If they did that, they’re probably going to start raking in at least a turn or two of extra income from Africa, and further hurt the British economy, as well as providing a point of distraction for either the U.S. or U.K. in the coming turns.
I don’t think this is a valid point to make to support the decision of handing Italy a free mIC on top of a VC.
-
If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.
In order to make it work: (1) the USA must spend heavily in the Atlantic on rounds 1 and 2 (like 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 sub, and transports for USA r1, and additional transports and subs for round 2); AND (2) UK’s r1 purchase must be heavy on sealion defense (e.g., 6 infantry, 1 fighter for UK)
Axis players may one of several ways:
(1) Pursue a costly Sealion against a fortified UK, in order to neutralize the factory;
(2) Attempt to take the factory without Sealion (this will require that the Axis avoid USA involvement in the war for the first three rounds, since the US’s presence in the atlantic would make controlling the med difficult to impossible. Japan’s hands are tied as well, since it can’t DOW against UK/Anzac without getting USA involved.
(3) Simply ignore the factory, forget Africa, and just focus on Russia.
All of these outcomes seem strategically advantageous for the allies :)
-
If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.
I think bids are far outside the scope of this specific conversation, but since you mentioned it, I think that the way you use bids by adding extra units to the initial set up, ruin the game balance in earnest and are both moot and lame. At the same time. In a slightly derogatory way. Now if you play against real men, they will probably offer the US NO bid, which gives US extra NO money, distributed each and every turn. This money will not come to effect before Turn 3 or 4, so they will not ruin the first Turn set up balance. IMHO anyway, not alway but sure in Norway.
And in this case, the Persian factory is more worthwhile
Suggested Topics
