UK Double IC

I played a game where my Japanese counterpart played this strategy upon my recommendation.  It was a disaster for us, because it was just not practical for controlling Asia, at all.

I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska.  I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50.  Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR.  Sorry.

yeah i agree your plan has some built in flexibility.  carrier + tran build in sz 61 is perfectly safe once you’ve taken out the UK ships.

On the other hand, the UK factory is basically gonna be in great shape given that carrier build and no IC’s.  Correct response of US hitting the atlantic hard and India holding up japan for a long time should make for a pretty easy allies win.  I really don’t think spending $16 on a carrier and getting only 1 transport to support additional land operations on R1 before the US has played its hand is a serious option as japan.  You may not enjoy protecting an IC in kwangtung but it’s far easier than protecting that one transport you built.

Yes, I have tried. It doesn’t work. With only 1 IPC, you can’t produce enough units to get your money’s worth out of it.

@TRakes:

What if the Russian player lends a fighter to the UK fleet on Rus1?

That makes the odds a lot stronger for UK.

Sure, makes the odds stronger for UK , but means that russian ftr is gone from the Russo-German front for AT LEAST two turns (R1+R2), possibly forever, without providing a single offensive diceroll (it cannot participate in any battle during R1, and also reach BEN).

It results in making trading more costly for the Ruskies, during R1+R2. Russia needs to expose 1 arm/turn , to get the same offensive power to trade land with the Germs. That is a cost of 5 ipc/turn, since that ARM will surely be killed. Furthermore, it might make it possible for Russia to only attack 1 area (WRU) during R1, instead of normal 2 (+BEL or +UKR).

The return is that Japan might loose extra naval units/ftrs, but the combined cost of exposing ARMs, plus the weakened attack power on R1, just doesn’t seem to be worth it. After all, even a combined SZ30 UK fleet, is something of a sideshow. The Russian-German border is the main theater of war.

With no Bids G1 I buy a carrier, tranny, and 5 guys.  Carrier and tranny go in the Baltic. Land 2 existing fighters on carrier NCM after they make their attacks. Forces UK to buy land forces because I can use the carrier to bring an extra 2 fighters towards a UK main land attack plus 2 extra land pieces via G1 tranny purchase. If not 2 trannies helps to pound northern Russia or retake Norway.  I invite the UK to attack my navy with a carrier/2 fighters sitting in the water or take Norway. Germ fleet is big enough to destroy UK fleet if they move closer to attack Norway before turn 3 with no additional Germ Naval purchases. I use MED fleet/Bomber/Fighter to attack Egypt killing UK Destroyer in process to start into Africa. If you dont take egypt UK can bring India Fleet into MED UK1. Thats bad news.  Kill UK BB SZ13 using SZ8 Germ sub as fodder and 3 fighters. 5 guys get placed for G2 transport movements, 4 in Berlin 5th in Southern Europe. To address the original question I think the channel dash is a real bad Idea. It allows the UK to destroy German Navy turn 1 and link up its India-MED navy. If US and UK have free passage to Berlin with their Navies its over soon for Germany.

You got it Paint… and with an average of 5 FIGs to play with, that is a LOT of shenanigans!

An IC in Anglo Egypt is the only one that makes sense, in my opinion. Africa is worth 12 IPCs per turn. If Germany, by buying an IPC in Africa, can hold Africa for an additional two turns, the benefits outweigh the cost, so it’s a good choice.