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
-
I’ve done a lot of British RAF strategies and it always comes down to the fact that they just don’t have any staying power. Lots of British fighters tie up Russian troops and prevent them from advancing lest the British fighters are left exposed to German and Japanese attacks. Meanwhile, America takes 4-5 rounds to come up to full speed anyway.
-
long story short….the cost of an IC in norway does not outweigh the benefits…it’s just not a logical move… when you think about it, you build the IC…you can’t use it until next turn…then germany will take it…then you might take it back w/ UK or US…but then ur still not even able to use it just yet…thats 15IPC’s that arent even being used…meanwhile…u could build 1transport 1inf 1 art…thats a loaded tranny… that could be used to invade W Europe…
that would be like japan building an IC on one of it’s islands…just useless. especially since it’s right in the warzone…
german bombers could pound the crap outa it
German infantry + armour + Luftwaffe could re-take it every turn if they truley wanted too…but it would cost them infantry going to russia…
only way an IC would be a good idea would be if the baltic fleet is destroyed…and karelia is in safe allied hands…then it makes more sense since germany can’t re-take it w/o going through karelia…n by then u have 3 tanks + w/e u put there in the first place.
the US has alot of money to throw at the Axis…but i think i speak for everyone when i say that it could be much better spend. a efficient and effective tranny system would be much more to the Allies liking. like mentioned in a previous message, it gives the US the ability to adapt to what Germany is showing. you can go for W Europe… or E europe(only when baltic fleet is destroyed) S Europe or Africa…with an IC in norway, your coming from norway…theres no suprise to it.
IC in norway isn’t as useful as tranny’s
Feds10
-
It is however a more efficient method of delivering specifically armor to specifically the Eastern Front, if that’s your ambition.
-
The trouble is that Germany then knows specifically it will be facing tanks from Norway, and can respond to the Allied threat more efficiently with that knowledge.
It could be a good idea in the right circumstances. But I think those circumstances are generally once the Allies have a healthy advantage, such as pumping out extra tanks faster for the final push.
-
Feds 10:
If you are building an IC in Norway when Germany even has a remote chance to take it before you can use it, then you are building it WAY too early.
The IC in Norway is a frosting on the cake move for the allies, not a replacement for the transportation system. What it does is jump start America’s move towards Japan by freeing up 2 to 4 transports from the shuck shuck without reducing the American flow of troops to E. Europe/Germany.
-
true…but it’s just pointless…tranny’s are far better in my opinion. and like mentioned by frood, it shows Germany where your coming from. tranny’s give you some ability to adjust to what you see from germany.
only way it would make sense is if the allies already have complete control of the seas…and is putting some serious pressure on germany…other then that i can’t agree with an IC in norway
Feds10
-
jen, if your interested in playing a game id be more then happy to :-) i want the Axis however cuz i’m not that strong of an allies player yet.
Feds 10
-
Sure Feds.
You registered with Flames of Europe or DAAK or AAMC? If so, we can start the game there and post the results here for all to see. My registered name on all 3 is Jennifer.
If not, do you want a bid for Axis or just want to take them as is?
-
i’m AAMC….dogtag is ahttr_86…i don’t know how to use the dicey’s too well…but i’m up for posting results on the website lol
8-)
Feds 10
-
Started a thread in the games in progress board, Fed.
-
Of course only AMERICA should be allowed to take Norway. America’s navy in the Baltic…IC on Norway…building one battleship every turn until it has 13 bombarding Berlin and bringing in one man on a transport. This is the guaranteed failsafe way for Allies to win.
-
If you happen to play with National Advantages, a US Norway IC is a great way to get tanks to Russia to be converted by Lend-Lease without tying up your fleet.
Otherwise, leave Norway to the Brits…they usually need the money.
I’m surprised by the number of people commenting on the possibility of Germany bombing the IC. If America brings an AA over, is Germany going to risk a 15 IPC bomber on a 3 IPC raid? Seems like a bad risk when German bombers are needed to threaten the Allied fleet.
-
I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.
Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.
-
I used to agree with you, Perry. I’ve since changed my mind.
I believe that England can find it most beneficial to have Norway since England is short of cash for the first few rounds and Norway is generally a freebie for them.
However, there is a valid point of America taking it. Of course, buying battleships every round for a German attack does not strike me as overly efficient. Perhaps Combined Arms + Destroyers would work better. But honestly, 10 Units from W. USA + 3 Units in Norway (even if it is all infantry) is eventually going to overwhelm the Germans.
-
I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.
Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.
I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.
As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.
Suggested Topics
