what Hobbes is saying is 100% true. But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia. Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak. Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.
US IC in Norway?
-
The risk is it falling to the Germans.
And I don’t always let the Brits have Algeria/Libya. It kind of depends on what the board looks like on UK 1.
-
The risk is it falling to the Germans.
I would consider that risk insignificant if you build the complex when it’s safe to do so.
And I don’t always let the Brits have Algeria/Libya. It kind of depends on what the board looks like on UK 1.
That would seem to conflict with your theory of allowing the UK to gather as much IPC as it can. In what situations do you believe that the UK shouldn’t gather every IPC it can?
-
I’m still letting England get every IPC it can, it just cannot get Algeria and Libya. :P
Seriously, there are times when England just cannot afford to go to Africa on round 1, in which case, America gets those two areas. Either way, Germany has to lose them as fast as possible, IMHO.
Sometimes England needs to land in Karelia/Archangelsk on Round 1.
Sometimes England needs to invade W. Europe and get 2 fighters because the Germans didn’t stack it well enough (my 2 on 2 loser game is like that, couldn’t pass up the 2 free fighter kills.)
Does it happen often? No. But it does happen and you have to have a contingency for it.
Meanwhile, the point I was making about it being in jeapordy was that England’s probably trading E. Europe, Belorussia and W. Russia when you build it. Otherwise it might be in jeapordy. In other words, England’s probably got a very large stack in Karelia and you only need the IC in Norway because England cannot spend all it’s money on land units, it just has too much!
-
Seriously, there are times when England just cannot afford to go to Africa on round 1, in which case, America gets those two areas. Either way, Germany has to lose them as fast as possible, IMHO.
Well yes I agree, but why not go in round 2? :? When the Germans build a navy I usually have to build in SZ2 on Uk1, then go to Algeria on round 2, thats when I grab them, not immediately.
Meanwhile, the point I was making about it being in jeapordy was that England’s probably trading E. Europe, Belorussia and W. Russia when you build it. Otherwise it might be in jeapordy. In other words, England’s probably got a very large stack in Karelia and you only need the IC in Norway because England cannot spend all it’s money on land units, it just has too much!
That seems infrequent, and also I was talking about the Americans building an IC there, because they usually have the cash available and it’s more efficient than building tran for that case.
-
I’ve never built one in Norway with the US because I simply don’t like to wait until US can take Norway.
In most of my games the US is pre-occupied with Africa in the beginning and I allow UK to take Norway a lot sooner than US gets into the N Atlantic. Unless Germany recaptures it I will allow the UK to keep it for the whole game. -
Yeah I see your point mr AJ, that’s what I’m used to doing as well. I just saw this move recently and was like hmm, does it have merit? I think it’s a toss-up if both forces are available to take it, but you might be “forced” to default it to one power when the other power has to do something else.
-
Bean, it seems your questions are, 1) US vs. UK taking Norway and building an IC there, and 2) Norway IC vs. just shucking with boats. On #1, it really depends on Axis strategy and the dice, to some degree. If Germany falters early in Africa, British income could potentially reach the mid-30s by turn 5 or so, in which case, Britain will have a little extra income to support a Norway IC. In some games, though, America ends up taking Norway through a weird set of circumstances, and when that happens, I am more than happy to build an American IC there. And why bother shucking over an American AA? Why take up the transport space? Just move over Britain’s and build another to replace it, if needed. If the German bomber is dead, though, don’t bother. So I guess in most games, I prefer UK to take Norway for income reasons. I don’t really go out of my way to let America take it unless, as you say, Britain is tied up elsewhere.
As for buying an IC versus just shucking, I look at it this way. To get 3 units from America to Norway, America must invest in 32 IPCs worth of boats (2 to get them to UK and 2 to get them to Norway/Karelia). Granted, that actually gets 4 units over, but that’s the investment that’s required. Compare that to 15 IPCs for the factory, and the fact you’re building on the front, and it’s an easy decision.
-
Thanks mr gamer. I do already realize that it’s better to buy the IC vs transports, from the very first post. I was wondering however if you should try to set it up such that the US takes Norway, or just let the UK have Norway, given that they both could take it without stressing any other attacks.
And why bother shucking an American AA? Because you may not have enough men to fill all of your transports early on anyways, very common. Why spend 5 IPCs to make an AA gun when you have freebies? That’d be like strategically bombing yourself for 5 IPCs, not to mention you can only make 7 men on UK if you made an AA for the 8th slot.
-
I also agree that an US factory in Norway is much more effective than 2 transports, and more like 4 ! (3 tanks vs 2inf 2tanks)
But it’s not always possible, if Germans have a counteroffensive force ready in Karelia, strong enough to wipe the US if they come alone. But two Allied waves are much more solid defensively: not only the British troops, but also the US planes that may arrive on the airfields captured by the British.UK 4inf, 4tnk US 4inf, 3tnk, 4fig, 1bmb, 1AA
OR: it’s possible Norway was swapped by light forces between US and Germany; then one time, Germans fail to recapture it (say 1inf,1art,1fig vs 2inf, quite possible) and the flag remains US. THEN would be the time for UK+US to come in force, with all UK planes too.
-
Basically:
US IC in Norway is great IF YOU CAN GET IT, but because of turn order and other various factor, it is very difficult to get in practice.
-
I think it is a good option,
It should provide indeed 3 units, and not being attacked after you got a nice cover from USSR or UK, at least not from Karilea, since you keep the pipeline going into that country.
I think it is worth it, but ah well, I doubt wether UK or US should build it, US is btter I think, they need to travel way more then UK.
-
Or America builds it in Norway, leaves it empty, Germany takes it, and England takes it away so England gets a free IC? :P
And, for the record, Algeria dies on Round 1. I don’t want to wait until Round 2. That’s more time for that solitary Transport to put annoyances in my way for my war for oil!
-
What if US builds the IC in Norway, UK lands as many troops as possible to protect it, and US starts building ships in the Baltic? (Like a BB and 2 subs). Germany would have to fight them or move, right into range of the Atlantic Fleet, which if built right, could destroy them. A quick way to expose more German shoreline to protect.
Interesting, but would need thought out in detail to work.
/Yes, I use to many apostrophes. -
I think building a fleet there is not going to lead anywhere,
Germany retreats (well I would at least) when you build an IC in Norway from the Atlantic, and keep all units focuses now on the entire Russian line, with additional US forces,
Building this IC, would you still build the one in Sinkiang?!
-
I think building a fleet there is not going to lead anywhere,
Germany retreats (well I would at least) when you build an IC in Norway from the Atlantic, and keep all units focuses now on the entire Russian line, with additional US forces,
Building this IC, would you still build the one in Sinkiang?!
who builds in Sikiang anyway? YOu need an indian IC there first
-
I think building a fleet there is not going to lead anywhere,
Germany retreats (well I would at least) when you build an IC in Norway from the Atlantic, and keep all units focuses now on the entire Russian line, with additional US forces,
Building this IC, would you still build the one in Sinkiang?!
who builds in Sikiang anyway? YOu need an indian IC there first
I was aiming on the US. ;)
-
I think building a fleet there is not going to lead anywhere,
Germany retreats (well I would at least) when you build an IC in Norway from the Atlantic, and keep all units focuses now on the entire Russian line, with additional US forces,
Building this IC, would you still build the one in Sinkiang?!
who builds in Sikiang anyway? YOu need an indian IC there first
I was aiming on the US. ;)
in order to have an IC in Sink, the UK should build an IC in India first. that way you have 2 ic pumpiong out units and makes it harder for Japan to take wither one of them
-
Me for US playing, I would only build anything there indeed when UK did India IC, and Russia is supporting from behind with inf.
But that is another story, lets stay a bit on topic. :)
-
An IC in Sinkiang can be very useful, if you are moving to reduce Japan to only an island. Of course, it necessitates an IC in India and China and possibly another in Manchuria.
However, if that’s the case, I’m not building one in Norway. :P Actually, I’m not building one in Norway anyway. I prefer to build it in W. Europe. :evil:
-
I think whoever and everyone who said it before is right - the US IC is a benefit vs transports, but the UK may have 8 units with nowhere else to go for the turn, so it may not be worth it to let the UK waste a turn (buying airforce or extra tps) just to let the US have Norway.
Suggested Topics
