US strategy : Alaska IC

I have used it.  It is helful in both getting infantry over to the Soviet far east quicker and also for a quicker build up of navy if you want to attack/threaten Japan.  I still do it in about 75% of games where I am the Allies.  It really takes the pressure off of Africa and India as Japan has to focus on her own protection.

Strange, I’ve never tried it unless Japan’s navy is sunk or neutralized. It’s never been my target going into a game. I don’t think that the IC would be necessary in Alaska unless you need to buy big expensive ships there. Troops can be built on WUS and marched to WCAN to be shucked to SFE.

I would see it as generally less effective because in order to be able to get troops to those territories, your navy needs to be able to withstand attack from Japan’s navy which at the end of Round 1 probably consists of 2 BB’s, 2 CV’s, 1 DD, 6 fig, 1 bom, 4 transports. And once you do get that kind of a navy together, which takes quite a while unless Japan neglects to build more ships/planes, Japan probably is pretty strong in Buryatia and can kill any invaders.

The upside to shucking to Europe is the relatively little need for capital ships, the greater ability to cooperate with the other Allies, the more valuable territories, most are worth $2-6 as compared to $1-3 in Asia, and the ability to contest Africa.

A better case can be made for Island Hopping because East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines are valuable and make good locations for factories.

An Alaska IC, like a Brazil IC, is not a terribly efficient use of resources.  You can just move land units up.  Concentrate instead on air power to destroy the Jap navy.

Theoretically, shucking from West Canada to Buryatia seems highly effective.  Yet for whatever reason I always seem to take the Southern route (ie Borneo, East Indies and eventually take Fico).  Still, if you can kill the Jap navy early shucking to Buryatia is biggg.

Once you are in a position to utilize the IC in Alaska it is great.  An extra 15 IPC’s for the ability to put up two super subs, a carrier for two planes and a destroyer, or a battleship and carrier, with immediate striking ability into Japan, you will see what I mean.  If Japan does not count on those types of builds and thinks that only infantry & artillery are being built to shuck over to the mainland you can surely surprise her.  If Japan does realize it and starts defending against it the pressure is off the islands/Africa/India.  I personally like it as does enemy, when they are playing the Allies.

Try something new, you may be surprised how refreshing it is to mix your games up a bit.  That is why I love these boards. I can pick up different ideas and try them in my games.

It’s not like an IC in Alaska is totally useless–it’s just not going to be terribly effective against a good Japan player.  The only point in buying the Alaska IC is to drop expensive naval units (preferably carriers, with fighters flown in from WUSA to Alaska) in SZs closer to Japan.  But to do that, you need to be basing the USA navy up north…that is, far from any territory greater than 1 ipc.  In this case, the Japs just need to defend Japan, which is easily done given they have an 8 ipc factory there.  Getting into a naval build-up in this region favors Axis, and meanwhile USA isn’t putting any pressure on the money islands.

It’s great to experiment with new stuff but going crazy on USA ICs is not good strategy.  I once played a 1-1 against an Allies who bought 5 factories with the USA (China, Sink, Alaska, Brazil, and West Russia) and 2 factories with UK (India and Norway).  He actually had the advantage in the early part of the game but all the cash he put into factories rather than gear hurt him down the line–not to mention the advantages the Japs had when they captured all those Asia factories.

Moral of the story is USA starts the game with a 12 ipc factory and a 10 ipc factory.  For maximum efficiency, the only factories USA should build are in mainland spots that can be defended (like say Norway) or maybe in Asia if all 3 Allies are pressuring Japan.

My observation from several years of playing Revised is that whomever builds an IC in Alaska will ultimately loose it. This has proven true whether the US or Japan has built the IC. I have personally never seen an exception to this in 5 years of playing Revised.

I really should try this some time (if I can build it on turn one). Just can’t see it being more effective than going for the IPC islands in the south.

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.