Anzac omission?

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.

@taamvan:

Even with 24 income for 4 or more turns, they don’t need to produce more than 3 units.   a battleship and a strategic bomber cost 32 and that’s only 2 units….

If the Aussies are buying battleships, they’re either doing something terribly wrong or they’re doing something terribly right.

I think it is all about who has the ipcs to spare from existing factory builds. That may be ANZAC, Russia, UK or none of them. It depends on what is happening in each game.

The 3 unit max ANZAC build in Australia can be a constraint if meeting national objectives in the east Indies, in which case a second factory is an idea and options are limited. In such circumstances I have started building bombers, as J is likely to already be on the back foot at land and sea, but might look for a second factory option in future.

@teslas:

edit-
Brazil seems inferior to Central US/SE.Mexico? Both are 4 away from SZ 92. Both are 6 away from London.

The Central US territories additionally also allow it to get back to Hawaii. Brazil does not. Any reason why you prefer Brazil?

You’re probably right.  Two things for you to consider, though.

One is, maybe USA is not at war yet so you can’t land on Central USA.  Maybe ANZ or UK has taken Brazil.

Second is, you do have more options to get deeper into Africa.  But you’re probably right - Central America would be better in many cases.

@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

Hitting Turkey turns all true neutrals pro-Allies.  Not sure if it is worth it when the allies are already making SO MUCH MORE per round than the Axis.  Not saying it is not worth it, just wondering if it wouldn’t be better to go around via transport instead, since it also secures the med and n. Africa.

Any time you’re not sure about something, just post it to the FAQ thread and everyone can benefit from the Q&A

Plus, Krieghund reads every answer on that thread and makes sure it’s right

@Gargantua:

My heart always feels like it Jen.

As Japan I like it when Russia invades.  I strip Manchuria/Korea because if they invade I get extra money and if they dont invade I dont have to go back.  The downside is, I eventually have to invade Russia.

I would much rather crush India like an over-ripe grape early in the game, knock out the Australians and worry about fleet for a few rounds, once I feel secure against America (assuming they sent anything towards Europe so I have a chance to feel secure - in alpha 2 -) then I can dump 50 IPC a round into China/Russia.

So far, in Alpha 3, it seems I don’t have to worry too much about America, they are hobbled pretty well with the loss of an NO in the Pacific.  Could be better, but at least now my opponents are investing in the Atlantic, at least a little.