UK Double IC

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.

They’re all like that.  This is just a typo that was corrected in the FAQ.

I think we need to look at the England complex in a different light.

If England gets a FREE complex, where should they put it? (Prior to Russia 1.)

Why?  Because that’s the majority of complexes England gets.  Not many people are buying Complexes for England until much later in the game when they can put them up in W. Europe or Norway. :P

So, to me the choices are:

And that’s pretty much the order i would put them in.  Unless there are some neat things going on with America and Russia that can help reinforce India faster.  Then it might change.

I like E. Canada over Australia because you can invest in a 5th & 6th Transport (something some of you want to do ANYWAY) with England and be landing 10 troops a round in Asia. 2 From E. Canada to England. 10 From England to North Europe.

If i build an IC in a captured territory, and I lose that territory, and another ally takes it over, its now their IC.

Thats not even a question, I just feel its the answer to one of the next ones to be asked.

To bad I missed the party, I’d drink to that.  :-D

-LT04

NO nation should EVER build 2 IC’s in turn 1.

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

@Jennifer:

In that case they are +4 IPC for Caucasus that turn.  However, they are not in an tactical advantage and Russia has suffered no loss for loosing it.

Net:  Russia Tactical Advantage with larger then normal stack in W. Russ.  IPC Gain +2 (WR)
Net:  Germany at no advantage, IPC gain of 4 in Cauc, IPC loss of 2 WR, net 2 IPC gain, tactical disadvantage due to larger then normal stack in WRuss.

The way I see it, Germany gains +4 IPC from the territory, and +1 IPC from the 1/3 chance of killing a unit with minimum value 3 IPC (one infantry), so net +5 IPC for investment of +3 IPC.  Germany also benefits from tying down the UK bomber for that turn, which is not trivial; a UK bomber can do a lot of damage to valuable naval units.

The Allies gain a tactical advantage from killing a forward placed German infantry, as well as the fact that the UK, not Russia, depleted Germany’s forces, which in turn allows Russia’s forces to mass and therefore be more efficient.

Russia gains nothing by holding West Russia because I believe Russia should hold West Russia until Germany has heavily massed at Ukraine.  That is, Russia should probably be holding West Russia anyways.