no offence Jen but that is broken logic IMO. Bean is right, a US infantry deffends just as well as a USSR infantry in moscow. the only diffrence would be if Russian winter is in effect, then it’s only a 1 turn thing that the Germans know is comming and can wait a turn.
You two misunderstand me then. A US Infantry defends just as well as a Russian infantry, but a US Infantry cannot attack with Russian tanks. That’s the difference and why I think you should target Russia over England or America (assuming you have to chose.)
I guess it’s not fortress Moscow that you really fear, but it’s more like…strafe-happy Moscow with 50 inf 10 arm and art/figs from Russia? I interpreted fortress Moscow as an impenetrable defense while the Allies gather more money than the Axis (Europe + Africa > all of Asia), but maybe you’re really fearing Russian strafes of Cauc/Novo with inf + its arm and stuff. Maybe I interpreted wrong.
In response to that, I usually designate 20-30 inf as pushers that go hardcore and help push Germany back to the capital. I don’t care if they die, in fact I’d rather they die so that the UK can accumulate one solid strike force. Which is not to say that I’m throwing them away in bad trades, but I’m hardly bothered if Germany targets them over UK inf because they are too far to help Moscow anyhow, and the Allies could use a little help moving in to E. Europe.
When you need to crack the German capital, you’d prefer to have a massive UK strikeforce with little Russian inf left rather than lots of Russian inf in E. Europe with little little UK inf left. And the other 10-20 inf + all builds from there on out is to defend against Japan with massive strafing power. Maybe I didn’t understand your case.
Yea, it’s more of limiting the three allies in what they can do to me. By stripping Russia of infantry whenever possible, they cannot build up stacks like they could otherwise. Meanwhile, England and America have the problem of getting their units into stacks to begin with since they have to transport them.
England and America have the problem of getting their units into stacks to begin with since they have to transport them.
Yup yup gotta agree, the Allies are stronger but harder to use. It’s easier to jilt the Allied game with a gambit than it is to jilt the Axis game because of all the damn transport logistics. :roll:
Why are you rolling your eyes there? Being factitious? Or are you being serious?
And I’m not so much looking for “gambits.” I’m just saying, personally, I think it is better to attack Russia then the other allies IF you have to make a choice between them. Maybe you don’t have the resources to hit both (all three) but you have the resources to hit one? How do you chose? I, personally, chose which ever is strongest, and if they are even, then I hit the Russians. (Strongest doesn’t mean best defending stack, strongest means total board strength levied against me.)
I’m being serious, the rolling eyes is to express annoyance at having to manage logistics as the Allies. It’s like going :roll: I have to take out the trash again… aww man.
yep guess if thats what you ment, then ya missunderstood :wink:
so ya, in that case i aggree.
I have to take out the trash again… aww man.
that reminds me, i got to do that.
Lol at Pervavita :lol:
Back to the original topic, I’m more interested in a Brazil complex than a UoSA complex.
The reasons why are:
I don’t think I like to build either complexes, but I would at least say that if you consider UoSA complex, you should probably go USA complex :lol:
The Brazilian IC is another of things I would like try some day, as the Austalian IC. Maybe some day.
I disagree that it is broken logic at all.
They DEFEND together, but which one is more readily able to attack? American infantry don’t attack with Russian infantry. And Russia can pop out 8 units in Moscow on top of their units they already have there. England and America are basically impotent for the first 5 rounds of the game.
i don’t see why go Brazil complex, i don’t think it realy speeds up the Africa game much, sure you can land south of the Sahara on the turn you load men, but then it’s 3 max, if you save that $ then spend it on 2 transports you can increase the flow form EUS to Algeria (i think the North West tip is that); if you need the troops south further, you can just take those 2 transports that cost the same as the complex (ok+1$ but you didn’t buy any transports for Brazil so it balances out) from Algeria and drop troops down further south, it adds a step in it all, but the first drop is just as fast and can have +1 unit to droop off. sure there is the threat of German planes striking your US navy, but isn’t there always? and each German plane waisted on the US is one less fighting the USSR that turn. the US should have a few war ships in that transport fleet, even if a few DD’s just to take subs out and add some fire against planes.
i don’t see why go Brazil complex, i don’t think it realy speeds up the Africa game much,
A brazilian complex can be used for more than just africa. Late game pushes on Western Europe can be supplemented with unit buys dropped in Brazil (like an inf, tank and tpt) as they can hit the very next turn.
Also extreme but doable is 3 bombers in brazil to hit WEU the next turn as well.
I have to agree. IC in Brazil seems less then optimal.
Why not just have two transports bring units from America to Brazil and two more from brazil over for an extra 1 IPC? Now you are bringing 4 units, not 3.
Of course, a Brazil IC is great for Japan. =)
Of course, a Brazil IC is great for Japan. =)
yep sure is
ok if your bringing the troops up for an attack on WEU for the 1 turn transport, i can see, but again wouldn’t it be better to save the $ and transport the men from US into Africa and then use those same transports the next turn to drop those troops +1 extra off in EU.
if this plan is for an invasion, it seams like a stupid plan as 3 units arn’t going to do much of a landing, expetally when the US should already have a mass transport chain in effect between US and Africa. all your realy doing is speeding up 3 units a turn that if you invested that same money into 2 transports could be bringing over 4 units and over the course of 2 turns the US transports are now out performing the vary small advantage that the Brazil complex gave.
example
US1
build complex in Brazil
US2
trani and 2 land units
US3
land 2 land units in Africa OR WEU
Build 1 trani and 2 land units
US4
tranis’ swap spots, land 2 land units
Build 1 trani and 2 land units
US5
1 trani swaps again, land 2 units
build 3 land units
US6
2 tranis drop 3 land units, 1 trani returns to Brazil
Build 1 and 2
it took 6 turns to drop 3 units well keeping consistent transport chanes going, and this is in a perfect world where the Germans won’t see this easy target and send fighters against it.
if they stocked, then it would be 3 units every other turn.
had they inported Tranis from US, then ya more would arive faster, but it would slow the US transport of MORE troops from the EUS
compaired to spending the money on US tranis
US1
build 2 tranis, build 4 ground units
US2
Build 2 tranis, build 4 ground units
transport 4 ground units to Africa
US3
build 2 tranis, build 4 ground units
transport 4 ground units to Africa
Transport from africa 4 ground units to WEU, SEU, or a few places along the African coast.
this gives 4 units not 3 doing exactly what the Brazil complex did in half the time and gave more flex as it could strike more locations.
Brazil can’t add any real value to a US stratagy other then it means the US is diverting resources in a diffrent place and in effect slowing there war on Germany.
if this plan is for an invasion, it seams like a stupid plan as 3 units arn’t going to do much of a landing, expetally when the US should already have a mass transport chain in effect between US and Africa. all your realy doing is speeding up 3 units a turn that if you invested
Pardon me for offering another use of the Brazilian IC other than to support Africa.
I prefaced my post with the fact that it was meant to be a bit of a boost on an all out push into WEU. In fact, they are many ‘optimal’ way to accomplish the movement of troops, but at times the need to have troops in certain areas before they can be moved is the optimal strategic move, maybe not the most efficient method.
Too many individuals are tied into scripted moves and ultra-optimal ways to ‘win’ the game. Being able to adjust your strategy as needed is more important, IMHO. It also is a major differentiator between good and great players.
I won’t stoop so low as to call your opinion stupid.
I have seen many good players utilize a US IC in Brazil.
Like MANY other options in this game, alot depends on what’s happened/is happening in the game.
it was not ment to be an attack on you, and i am sorry if it came off as such.
i was stating that (although worded poor) that the strat was not a good one as it could be done more economicly in a diffrent way.
now flexability i agree with, you should always have a flexable strat, and i am always for trying new things. i just didn’t see this as a viable one, i have considered it in games but never saw any time that it could help the Allies in any way, but i have on the other hand sceen many times as Japan i would love the US to waist the money on it.
@Cmdr:
I have to agree. IC in Brazil seems less then optimal.
Why not just have two transports bring units from America to Brazil and two more from brazil over for an extra 1 IPC? Now you are bringing 4 units, not 3.
Of course, a Brazil IC is great for Japan. =)
Thanks, once again my post was completely misread. I did not say I would like to build a Brazil complex. I did not say it was optimal, or even a good idea.
I simply think that it is less silly than a UK complex in UoSA. The UK cannot afford it, it is less safe, it produces less units, and UK has less airforce to have fooling around in Africa.
I have to conclude logically that if you think the Brazil complex sucks, that the UK complex in UoSA sucks even harder.
Yes, but England is also hamstrung by England producing maximum 8 units a round.
S. Africa at least lets them hold Africa easier. Australia is just too far away from anything to be worth anything, either to Japan taking it, or England holding it.
England to me never gets hamstrung by 8 units a round. I struggle very hard to get more than $32 per round against a competent Axis player, because of losing so much territory in the Pacific/Asia. I think it’s silly for the UK to build a complex anywhere, even Norway, because at some point you will dip below $32 and say to yourself, why I do have 11 production spots but am using only 8? Why did I pay for those extra 3 production spots with no units?
America can easily afford to fight for Africa; UK cannot.
If England has issues with a build limit of 8, then there are better choices for an IC… Norway (which they almost certainly hold if they have build limit issues) or even ECan.
Both are better options than UOSA.
