Industrial Complex Clarification

I think the strategy is there and works well i win more than i loose against good axis players.  Wondering if maybe we could setup a team to test and get the timings down.  Figure out how many fighters Russia needs to survive Japanese and German non stop Blitz on Russia.  Also how many bombers are optimal to avoid purchasing too many.  I am not sure if you can have too many bombers they have dual roles to industrial bomb and to support attacking\landing infantry in Western Europe.  Figure out what turn USA needs to quit buying bombers and switch to Naval.

@MrBill13:

fellow world domineers,

After a bit of a vacation from the forum, I made the mistake of reading a post that said the “LHTR” is essentially the bible for tournament play. So of course i had to read it. I have to ask because unless Hasbro came out with some modifications to the rules, there are some conflicts.

1. The rules that came with (my copy anyway) of spring 1942 say that strategic bombardment cannot total more than twice the territories worth. The LHTR says no more than simply the value of the territory. Since I don’t play in tournaments, which is the overall accepted procedure.

2. When I played classic, every Ack Ack we flew over could fire on your planes. Spring 42 says that only Ack Acks in a country being attacked fire on planes. LHTR goes back to the classic way. Again, which is generally accepted.

3. Nothing is said in the Sping 42 rulebook about weapons development. And I ask again, is this generally accepted, or do these particular rules only come into use during tournament play.

Thanks for your indulgence…

The sequence of releases/rules is Revised, LHTR and Spring 1942. LHTR is a middle step between Revised and Spring 1942, you can see the differences between the 3 rulesets on the attached .pdf made by Krieghund.

Concerning your questions.

The strat bombing on Spring 1942 inflicts damage on the IC (up to double the territory’s value), on LHTR it removes IPCs from the player (up to the value of the territory).
2)On LHTR/Revised AAs can fire during Combat Move. On Spring 1942 they only fire during combat. There’s no tech on Spring 1942.

A&A_1942_&_Revised_Editions_Rules_Comparison.pdf

its ALL counter-intuitive because generally speaking, if the attacking force doesn’t want to kill subs, they wouldn’t aim at subs  :lol:  I can’t think of any tactics that would force the attacker to dispatch the subs before the transports, but thems the rules.

Indeed SZ 3 is adjacent. And they could have made a little effort to make this clearer on the board…. At least IL did on his custom maps…

Yes, it does.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

If the Germans attacked Egypt and failed then the british fleet moves though the Suez and sinks the German fleet of Egypt.  With no ability to get further German units into Africa why would you want to build an IC?

If the Germans don’t attack Egypt then they probaby are not a very good player.  If they don’t even use the German fleet to land units into Libya then you should probably be playing a better opponent.

So, at the very least, a poor timid German should have 4 land units in Libya, plus the ability to land 2 more units on Africa on G2 combined with 4 in Libya combined with airforce.  And you plan on defending a newly built IC in Egypt against that?

I am generally against any strategy that goes like this:  “Well, I build an IC here, and all the allies have to do is fly all their planes to the territory and revolve all their plans around defending the IC and it can work!”.

When do the Germans not take Egypt, the only 2 times was when I sent, 2 Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 Bomber, and a few Fighters, but I did clear out the area, just lost all my units there! Then when I was like the Allies, he “I don’t want to waste units to fight in Africa!” and only sent in the forces in Libya, and 1 infantry and 1 Tank from Southern Europe.

Russia needs to be producing the maximum number of units per turn that it can produce to hold off Germany, so it can’t really afford to buy another IC.  Besides, there is no good place for them to put one anyway, as most of their territories would only be able to produce 1 unit per turn anyway, unless you try to build one on the German front where you wouldn’t get to use it anyway…

Germany doesn’t really need to buy another IC with being able to produce 16 units between Germany and Southern Europe in the first place, as they would need to be earning 48 IPCs a turn to even produce that many infantry, so an IC purchase for them is typically unnecessary unless you manage to take over Africa and are earning that much.  I’ve never given it much thought as I’ve never had an issue with not having enough production capability with Germany’s 2 IC, but personally I would probably build one in Western Europe since it has the greatest production capability and already has an AA gun.  Alternately, you may want to produce units one step closer to the Russian line, in which case the Balkans would probably be your next best position for three reasons:
1. Production value of 3 and 1 step closer to the Russian front.
2. Distance of Allied supply lines to take it: Russians typically are trading Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine at their best, and US/UK would have to bring their transports all the way to sea zone 16 to assault it.
3. Deadzoned by bordering both Germany and Southern Europe, so if the Allies do manage to take Balkans, it should be easy enough to retake it.
You probably also could build an IC in Egypt or South Africa if you want to better hold on to Africa, but as Africa is only good for the income and doesn’t directly help you win the game, that would probably be counterproductive.

An India IC is too easily conquered by Japan in 1942, though if you really want to build an IC with UK a South Africa IC can still be worthwhile to drop 2 inf per turn at least (2 tanks can be better), but again you don’t want to neglect your navy as the UK.

Transports are the way to go for Japan as they allow more flexibility and speed for the value (you can move 4 units from Japan faster for 14 IPCs with 2 transports than building an IC for 15 IPCs that can only produce 3 units).  However, once Japan starts earning more money it becomes worthwhile to build an IC for the purpose of being able to produce more units, and as habs4life9 was saying, India is a great place for this (which makes UK building an IC in India even worse for the Allies as it saves Japan 15 IPCs for them to build it themselves).

The US has the most need for building an IC since its ICs start out an ocean away from any battle, but it also has the least possibilities, so most of the time the US doesn’t build any new ICs since it doesn’t have anywhere to build them.  Since China is US controlled in this version, the US can consider an IC in Sinkiang only if they know they’ll get lots of support from Russia to keep the Japanese from taking it right away, however, this isn’t usually much of a help since it can only produce 2 units per turn.  The China territory itself is too vulnerable to the Japanese.  Brazil can produce 3 units, but is only 1 step closer than EUS is anyway, so that isn’t too much help.  The best option for an IC for the US would be for them to take Norway and build an IC there, bringing over the AA gun from EUS on a transport from ECanada to protect it from German bombers.  This lets the US build 3 units directly into Europe where they can immediately be of use against Germany.  The only problem is that typically the UK takes Norway since they are closer and it provides them with some much needed income with Germany taking over Africa, but it may still be worth it for the US to immediately have units in Europe.

@Krieghund:

Moderator, please move this thread to the correct forum.

You can probably just delete it now, as the poster has reposted in the correct forum.  Thanks.