hahaha, oh man I was in tears, especially when I read Morden’s post.
Norway on KGF
-
Russian held Norway. Additional infantry. Big whoop.
UK held Norway. Additional infantry. Big whoop.
US held Norway. Industrial complex. Three tanks. kewwwl.My thoughts exactly.
-
Russian held Norway. Additional infantry. Big whoop.
UK held Norway. Additional infantry. Big whoop.
US held Norway. Industrial complex. Three tanks. kewwwl.Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.
UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.
US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack. You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack. Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US
key question:
how many rounds should the allies wait (if given the chance) to let US take Norway?
one round? Certainly
two rounds… perhaps
three rounds…? Is that worth it? -
ditto on Coberts post.
-
My own overriding thought on Norway…
3 IPC not going to Germany and instead held by the Allies… GREAT!
If I am playing the Allies, I don’t care who has it, so long as it is not Germany or Japan. :mrgreen:
-
If it were easy to chose which country obtained Norway, then I would want the Russians to have it. They need the money more than any of the other allies. They are always in the most immediate danger.
The USA would do well with Norway because they could afford to build a factory there any start pouring out tanks.
However, England is always in the easiest position to take it (with USA following up with reinforcements) and Russia usually attacking German units in Karelia on their turn.
At any rate, as long as the allies have it, they should be happy.
-
I like the UK with Norway. If I can keep UKs income above 30 (Norway, Africa) then I am not only shuttling 4 loaded transports per turn to Europe, but I also have additional income to help Threaten German shores even more. Whether buying a fighter, an extra trn, or just filling my transports with 1 inf 1 arm, I am putting the screws to Germany and forcing them to protect their core territories (WEU, GER, EEU) that much more. The more they have to protect home territories, the less they have to pressure Russia.
-
I have fallen in love with the idea of the US taking Norway b/c I build an IC in India and another in Australia or S Africa. I like the UK to focus on those to slow down Japan. If the US could take Norway and build an IC and boost Russia’s front line with 3 tanks every turn, unless the US also builds a navy and augments Russia with additional forces the allies would be as my uncle always says “they’d be standing in tall cotton.â€
-LT04
-
I’d like to see your UK in action some time. I haven’t seen a good UK IC strat yet.
-
Asia wall dont work
-
Asia wall dont work
Depends on your purpose.
If used correctly, it CAN be effective. But the risk (for both dice and error) is greater than with a traditional KGF.
-
RJ,
My UK game is very contingent upon what happens on J1. If they are very aggressive on the mainland my UK suffers heavily initially. Typically I like to place a IC on India and S Africa. India produces a ARM INF mix at first then moves to only INF. The S Africa IC only produces ARM to at first push Germany out of Africa then push to India. Granted it doesn’t always work like that depending on other matters, but that’s my ideal starting strategy for the UK.
I hope that didn’t take us off the Norway subject to much. :-D
-LT04
-
If you care gong to spend $30 (the cost of 2 IC’s), a better option would be to build a WCan IC and 2 TRN for $31 IPCs.
By building in WCan, you can build 3 units (the same as india), and with the extra TRN, UK can re-take Africa without drawing force off their European landings. It also allows you to increase the amount of punch on a European landing anytime you choose.
An India IC without a US IC is asking for trouble in most cases, and usually ends up as a cost savings to Japan of $15, as well as being able to produce in India a turn faster than if they had to build their own IC.
-
u mean Eca?
-
Oops, yes, sorry. EASTERN Canada.
-
Just a question, why make a ECan IC? I’ve never really understood, is it because you have a German with a huge army in Norway and therefore can punish your fleet at Sz2?
and if….have you lost the UK BB? (with the Rus sub you rarely see the G1 sub+ftr+bom on Sz2).Because I just see it as a 15 IC pointsink…if you’re gonna make that factory you’re gonna loose 1 turn just waiting for it…I prefer simply say “I buy nothing” with UK and
next turn buy a fleet that can defend itself for 50IC and save that 15IC from ECan.I’m mostly curious…why the IC in ECan? in what situations is it good?
-
I would like to hear a reason, too.
-LT04
-
-
If UK has it’s original 30 IPCs of territories, plus ALG & LIB & belorussia and maybe trading EEU or WEU it has enough income to produce more than 8 units per turn, with no other viable IC location to place those units. In this situation I could see an ECA IC.
-
Sorry for going offtopic with this “ECan IC” but it just needed clarification.
Very good explanation and yeah I can see an UK IC there then.Back to Norway! (I prefer the US btw since then he can build IC and spend 12IPC on Germany each round and get into the fray while spending the other money on Japan)
-
Don’t discount a UK IC in Norway. As long as you can foresee the UK earning at least 33 IPC’s then it makes more sense for the UK to build there. UK’s job is to provide an early buffer between Germany and Russia to allow Russia to turn it’s attention toward Japan. 11 UK units going into Europe every turn almost single-handedly matches Germany’s production which leaves the Russians free. That allows the US to land less units in Europe to maintain the Germany containment wall and send more units through Africa to protect the UK’s income and press Japan.
I see no reason for the Allies to wait until the US can take Norway and build an IC there because the UK needs the income more than the US, by the time the US gets into position to take Norway their transport system is already completely set up, and the US production capacity is never seriously taxed so there is no need to build another IC when the transports are already there.
Suggested Topics
