UK Double IC

I don’t much like playing Revised with tech… basically it means the game revolves around whether you get the techs early on.  Like say if you tech for rockets with UK and get them on Round 1 then Axis is pretty much screwed, but if UK techs for several rounds and doesn’t get them then they fall way behind.  Not to mention the fact that heavy bombers are very unbalanced, particuarly if USA gets them.

The game plays out beautifully w/o tech–why screw it up by making game outcomes exclusively determined by luck?

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.

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

@Dr.:

@ncscswitch:

The thing is, you can pretty much take out the US with a lesser landing than that…
Japan lands in Alaska and WCan from SZ63
Japan lands in Mexico from Hawaii
Germany lands in Panama, Cuba, and ECan.
USA (the 48 states) has not been TOUCHED , but they are effectiely out of it, at least for many, many turns (unless the UK can get the German ships, or Russia can kick Japan out of Asia in the same turn)

How are you going to pull of a landing like that? Germany shouldn’t have a chance of landing t three different territories

It’s assumed that Japan has 5 inf 5 tank in W. Canada, while Germany lands 4 inf 4 tank or so with a Baltic transport buy on G1 followed by move to W. Europe followed by transport to E. Canada.  Following turn allows landing in Panama and Cuba as US is on defense.

HOW COULD U MISS DAT?  LOLZ!

(I’m kidding . . . anyone could miss that.  Hell, I still don’t get it, really.)

I have to disagree with abandoning India so Quickly.  In order for japan to be sucessful it needs focus on attacking and holding the mainland. (which includes taking control of  China, the Russian controlled  part of Asia, and India,  as fast as it can.) If Japan buys 1 or 2  IC’s  on its first turn, The main land is going to be extremely bare when its Uk’s 2nd turn. So my advice is not build an IC on India but take the transport from india, and pick up the guy from South Africa, and move the persian guy into India. ( If the Japan decides to attack your Fleet so  be it,  You will leave the Jap fleet very weak and it will be easier for the U.S fleet to handle. )

Don’t worry about Africa, the U.S. should always be ones who control Africa. The U.S can land 5 peices on Africa the first turn.( 2 men 1 artillary, 1 tank, and a plane.) Eventually you will have to pull out of  India and thats when  the small uk force can A. move into the Caucus’s or B. Help the U.S control Africa.

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.

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.