IC's ???

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.

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.

Replied on the other thread  :-)

The reason they are rated low, for me, is as follows:

1)  Submarines are expensive
2)  Submarines die to fighters without risk to the fighters
3)  Submarines purchased take 4 full turns to break even (odds?)
4)  The two submarines in SZ 5 die in every game I’ve ever seen.  It’s just a debate over when, not if they die.
5)  Germany has no business buying up lots of submarines.
6)  America is relatively unaffected by U-Boats.  Sure, they have less money, but honestly, -3 IPC from 42 IPC is not that much.

Those are ranked in order of importance to me.

That said, if you get them as a random bonus, it isn’t horrible.  Germany, of course, has no worthless advantages.

I sent a pm to rjclayton a few days ago when this first started happening for us, informing him of the error.  He seemed to be one of the folks most closely associated with TripleA based on some of his posts.  I don’t know if he was the right person or not, but I haven’t heard anything back.

I do have to agree, working the summary manually has been pretty easy, but I think there’s a bit more controls in place if it’s all done in one step.  Not an issue for your average game, but if things get crazy competitive it’s something that might be nice to have for game admins/judges.

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.

In my two recent games however Russia has kept nothing in the East anyway. I guess you would still have to build more TRN anyway. Maybe the EI IC is a better build later on.

@ShadowHAwk:

Australia and NZ can be good locations if you can get there without expending to much troops.
It is easy IPCs and they wont take it back. Also it cuts away 1 of the allied powers concentrated.

If you focus on 1 power it helps more efficient then on all powers.

Especialy the turn you build an Ic you might not be able to build enough troops to use all 4 trannies if you move 2 south then ( to enforce FIC ) you can take Australia next turn without losing much transport power but cutting in 3 more ipcs from the UK who at that point has verry little IPCs and is losing afrika making it completely dependant on the US to do anything at all.

Sure they’ll take it back . . . but only if it’s a KJF.  I assume this whole thread is pretty much based off a KGF assumption, because otherwise Japan should go inf/fighter turtle.

My typical Aus/NZ/Hawaii plan uses ONE transport, BB support shot(s) and a carrier.  I use the infantry from the southeastern islands to replenish.

Sometimes I can’t afford to go Aus/NZ/Hawaii depending on the India/Ssinkiang situation.