Does Germany ever build ICs?

My purchase and exact unit allocation will depend on Russia’s move and how it went. I prefer to build only land units on G1. If I’m able to stack Karelia or Ukraine, I’ll build 2-3 tanks. No matter what, here’s what I attack in no particular order:

1. Gibraltar Battleship: sub, 3-4 fighters
2. Karelia: minimal force or full stack, depending on counterattack
3. Egypt: 2 inf, 2 tanks, maybe a fighter, bomber
4. East Med Destroyer: battleship, loaded transport, fighter

If Russia attacked Ukraine or Belorussia, I will always counterattack. An attack on Ukraine changes where I play my fighters. Attacking West Russia on G1 is a risky play that I’ll only consider if Russia had really lousy dice.

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.

German starting units

Seazone 8 1 sub
seazone 5 2 subs 1 transport 1 destroyer
Seazone 14 1 transport 1 battleship
Norway 3 infantry 1 fighter
Germany 3 infantry 2 armor 1 fighter 1 bomber 1 aa gun
Western Europe 2 infantry 2 armor 1 fighter 1 aa gun
Southern Europe 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 armor 1 aa gun
Balkans 2 infantry 1 armor 1 fighter
Eastern Europe 2 infantry 1 armor 1 fighter
Belorussia 3 infantry
West Russia 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 armor
Ukraine 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 armor 1 fighter
Algeria 1 infantry 1 armor
Libya 1 infantry 1 armor

Starting income and money 40 IPCs.

Australian IC is a great idea
and personally i favor it
i can say its my standard move, altough i must say UK play depends( a lot or not ) upon the G1 move

so Australia IC can be put in round 1

even in round 2 if its a surprise

but i agree with Emperor Mollari without USA going forcefully in Pacific, UK forces down there are doomed

and altough this strategy is great, if Australian IC falls to the Japanese, it leads Allies to almost certain defeat, since UK spent a lot of IPC on their fleet here and (partially) egnored European theatre, so overall

i would say anyone go for it

and dont be dissapointed if it fails, even a few times, find a way to improve the strategy, it can be done, but it requires a good coordination, USSR and USA are (very) important here altought it doesnt seem that way on the first look

thats my view upon this…

@Perry:

I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.

UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.

Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.

I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.

As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.

whoa ho ho - touche’

You would honestly be saving 1-2 turns by producing fleet out of India rather than SA. Good counter point Jen.

@newpaintbrush:

@Jennifer:

How do you plan to invade England when they have 2 fighters, 2, armor, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 bombers + 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 artillery, 1 armor from America on it?

Keep in mind you have maybe 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 transports and 1 battleship to use on Germany 2 and that’s making some assumptions that you did not loose any of those assets prior to your second turn and that you landed all those aircraft in France somehow knowing that England was going to buy a bomber and an IC instead of something else.

How is it that every time I propose a move, that the Allies mysteriously pop up with these shadow forces in the ideal place?  That’s why I really dislike Jennifer’s responses.  Somehow the Allies always watched to see what Germany would do, and did something that would otherwise be almost retarded to counter Germany’s response.  But in that case, Germany can just have done the other thing.

Hmm, possibly because you keep changing what Germany does to fit the actions of England who moves after Germany???

However, I’ve never changed my English strategy.  They always end up with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 infantry, armor and artillery + America can land more if Germany appears to be setting up Sea Lion.

Not my fault you’re not capable of seeing the short falls in your own plans.  I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not.  You need to pay closer attention to details that are posted instead of assuming.

I presume you assumed England sent her bomber to Egypt, retook Egypt with the SZ 35/India equipment, landed troops in Algeria, leaving their capital with only a few infantry to defend it, huh?  Because, unless that’s exactly what England does, Germany hasn’t a chance in hell of taking it on G2 and everyone on the board knows it.

Ive done some calulations for DAAKs low luck rules for this tech to Germany…
My basic idea was to research the tech fairly quick, but more dice gets expensive with the DAAK Rules so Ive puzzled a bit with buying two dice per turn which will be an avarage cost while you get the tech fairly quick. This will cost 33 IPC over the course of the first three turns and then the tech will come in with a 100% chance in GER#3 and you can start using them by GER#4
Now you can take 3-4 IPC away from both moscow and London and 2-4 away from caucasus (the damage is based on DAAKs rules regarding SBR damage compared to IPC value of countries)
This is an average damage of 10 IPC per turn (3,5 + 3,5 + 3)… Profit for germany on turn 8, but at the cost of 11 infantry who could be used to on the eastern front to trade territorries with the russians. Im affraid that putting this kind of money in this tech would also mean that it will take much longer to conquer Caucasuses.

I don’t think its worht it.
-Daniel