If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.
In order to make it work: (1) the USA must spend heavily in the Atlantic on rounds 1 and 2 (like 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 sub, and transports for USA r1, and additional transports and subs for round 2); AND (2) UK’s r1 purchase must be heavy on sealion defense (e.g., 6 infantry, 1 fighter for UK)
Axis players may one of several ways:
(1) Pursue a costly Sealion against a fortified UK, in order to neutralize the factory;
(2) Attempt to take the factory without Sealion (this will require that the Axis avoid USA involvement in the war for the first three rounds, since the US’s presence in the atlantic would make controlling the med difficult to impossible. Japan’s hands are tied as well, since it can’t DOW against UK/Anzac without getting USA involved.
(3) Simply ignore the factory, forget Africa, and just focus on Russia.
All of these outcomes seem strategically advantageous for the allies :)
If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.
I think bids are far outside the scope of this specific conversation, but since you mentioned it, I think that the way you use bids by adding extra units to the initial set up, ruin the game balance in earnest and are both moot and lame. At the same time. In a slightly derogatory way. Now if you play against real men, they will probably offer the US NO bid, which gives US extra NO money, distributed each and every turn. This money will not come to effect before Turn 3 or 4, so they will not ruin the first Turn set up balance. IMHO anyway, not alway but sure in Norway.
And in this case, the Persian factory is more worthwhile
