Does Germany ever build ICs?

Not much sense to Germany or Russia building ICs in Revised.  Germany already starts with the ability to make 16 units a turn–that’s all you need.  The only interesting places I’ve seen Germany place an IC are Western Europe (for naval strats) and Ukraine (to help aggressive stack there).  And I’d argue stacking Ukraine is better achieved by simply buying more land units and moving em out.

ICs are expensive enough as it is–no need to buy em w/o reason.

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.

I think UK needs it the most since it has the job of attacking the Germans first. UK’s IPCs are going downhill rapidly, and it can’t mount much of an offensive on ~24 IPC income.

@General_D.Fox:

Why not just do a crossword instead?  No luck involved there, just yeer brain!!!

“brain”?!

Don’t be usin those four letter words up in heah!

@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.

The main reason you could do that is because you took London on G2, so he couldn’t possibly increase his naval force (not to mention he lost a fighter off his carrier). Plus, the US didn’t really put any effort into co-guarding the UK fleet because he is trying to go after Japan first.

You made an excellent choice in this circumstance and it is a good example of what I think the German navy was designed for, but in normal circumstances the costs would have been greater and the benefits less if the US/UK had united in SZ8 and built some navy together (and not lose the capital  :lol:)

But is it even possible to hold off a British / U.S. invasion in Europe while attacking Africa, all the while getting bombed? I would think not, unless one had lucky rolls. And if Russia was smart they would take advantage of the situation and pick apart any scattered German positions. In this situation, I think Japan has to do its part flawlessly, whatever that may be. Annoying U.S., trying to help roll up Russia, taking NZ Australia and India?

Sounds like a tough decision to make.

:roll: i’m sorry, i really am :wink: