I played a game where my Japanese counterpart played this strategy upon my recommendation. It was a disaster for us, because it was just not practical for controlling Asia, at all.
Japanese IC
-
I think the idea of a brazillian IC is really useless. Lets compare what is more effective at taking africa, shall we?
IC in brazil method:
US1: Build factory in brazil, move 2 inf, art, armor to brazil with two transports
US2: In brazil, build 1 transport, 1 arm, 1 inf, land two transports wherver
Note - At this point, if the US is contesting africa, they have two boatloads which is tough to counter.
US3: Drop 1 inf, 1 arm from brazilian transport in africa, move other two transports back to pick up newly built X?So, at the end of round 3, you have dropped 6 troops in africa. You are limited by brazil to drop 3 a round, limiting the use of your original transports. If you want to drop more, you have to shuffle back to eastern to do so.
Transport method:
US1: Build two transports in eastern, build two arm in eastern (and shuffle inf). Move two transports with 2 inf, art, arm to brazil seas.
US2: Bring two transports from eastern to drop troops in brazil, bring two boatloads from brazil to africa
US3: Have two trans that dropped in africa grab brazilian troops and drop in africa.So, using the IC method at the end of US3 you have spent 31 IPCs on africa. Using the transport method, you have spent 26 IPCs on africa. Troopwise, the IC method gives you 6 troops dropped in africa, while the transport method (for less IPCs!) gives you 8 troops.
Now, if you wanted to keep supply lines going with the transport method, you’d have to build extra transports in US 2 to shuffle with the trans in brazil. However, with 8 troops already in africa it seems unlikely that you would have to, and you could just wait for another drop in US 5. The key, as ncswitch put it, is that at the end of africa, you have 15 IPCs of waste in brazil. Using transports, you have those same IPCs still usable, and necessary for the US. It’s a no brainer for me…
-
US could bring two transports down, but I think I said somewhere above that all it takes is one. Just because Brazil can produce 3 units per turn doesn’t mean it has to. Once the factory is established the US can use discretion as to how much, if any, force to produce in Brazil.
-
It still just seems like a waste of the initial investment of 15 IPC’s…
For $1 more, I get 2 trannies that I can use for the same purpose, then, when Africa is locked up, those same 2 trannies get used for European (or even Pacific) operations, where as the Brazil IC just gets mothballed and becomes a target for rading Japan ships…
-
I think the Brazilian complex, like I mentioned before, is fine if you’re mainly gunning after Japan but need to keep the Germans out of Africa so the Germans don’t defeat the UK/Russia. The US is usually relegated to retaking Africa in any case, so you spend a small number of IPCs along with some airforce to duel with the Germans in Africa while you’re building a large navy to screw up the Japanese plans. If you simply rely on a normal Algerian shuck, you risk losing transports to fighters in Western Europe.
But like everyone’s been saying, the Brazilian complex is not optimal if you’re going KGF, since the US will have enough protection in the waters against fighters and you want every IPC spent to be useful to you in the future.
-
What I fail to see is why you cannot shuck down to brazil, then to africa, then back again.
I’ll call 2 original eastern us transports EUST.
I’ll call 2 US1 built transports NT.US1: EUST to brazil seas.
US2: EUST to africa (somewhere)
US3: EUST to brazil
US4: EUST to africa
US5: EUST to brazil
US6: EUST to africaUS1: Build NT
US2: NT to brazil
US3: NT to EUS
US4: NT to brazil
US5: NT to EUS
US6: NT to brazilEvery two rounds you get four units to africa if you want. The commitment of two transports is rather equivalent to the factory, but it seems to me that you can get troops there just as quickly and effectively, for cheaper, and with extra transports to use later if you go the transport route. Can you give me a 6 round breakdown of what you would do with the factory so I don’t make assumptions about transport buys vs. arm/inf?
-
Transports going to Algeria are susceptible to fighters stationed in Western Europe, that’s why.
-
But Tri…
Using Fiendishes method, you don;t HAVE to offload in Algeria…
You can offload from SZ17 to FWA or SZ23 into FEA or BC…
He is talking about a 2 round shuck… out of range of German AF…
-
Thank you switch. Sometimes I feel like people only hear what they want to hear.
-
but it seems to me that you can get troops there just as quickly and effectively, for cheaper, and with extra transports to use later if you go the transport route.
I see what you’re saying, but how is 4 units every 2 rounds “just as” quick and effective as 3 units every round from a complex? How is 2 transports cheaper than 1 complex? The only advantage in your way is use of transports later, which is ok, but not nearly what you’re advertising, and might not even be an issue in a KJF game which is the only case in which I’m defending the Brazilian complex.
-
Hmmm, well I guess it is not more effective, you’re right. I just went and looked at the numbers and by the end of round 6 the transport method would only yield you 12 units, while the factory method would yield you (assuming you use original 2 transports) 4 on round 2, 3 on round 3, 4, 5, 6. The method I would be advocating would require two extra transports to shuffle down to brazil, which obviously costs substantially more than the factory and only allows you to get 1 more unit there a turn.
I think I just have an aversion to having a factory around not doing anything later in the game, but in your case it would definitely be worth it. In every other case I would definitely suggest against a brazilian IC, but for the smallest amount of IPCs I guess the factory in brazil would have to be the way to go, assuming you just want to use the original EUS transports.
Suggested Topics
