If your playing a smart player, who does not “Pearl Harbor” with Japan and uses the Navy to take India which is basically Impossible to stop. Do not buy Industrial complex turn 1. Wait and see if the Japan player does “Pearl Harbor” or not if he does then you should be safe but i would wait until turn 2 or 3. Don’t forget about the 2 infantry and transport in Australia they help defend India very well, Also the transport can move Infantry from Africa to India (after Germany has been removed from Africa). My favorite UK strategy is to fly fighters from India to Russia “Moscow”. Creates a brick wall of infantry and fighters to setup a long game to use the Allied 3 turn advantage to win. Its hilarious to watch Germany throw tanks and infantry trying to wear down Russia and the 10+ UK fighters and Russian Infantry just obliterate them.
US Factory in Brazil
-
Has anyone experimented with a US Factory in Brazil? A local player has used that once or twice. He made a few tactical mistakes elsewhere that prevented a good evaluation of the strategy.
Typically with Fortress Europe there are bombers in WEu that prevent undefended transports shucking from mainland US to SZ17. Shucking to Algeria requires enormous fleet defense long term as you need to defend Sz12 from massive air attacks from axis airforces in Weu, moreover, it takes time for forces to flow into usage and the advancing forces can be hammered by the Japanese with well a positioned fleet.
By shucking small builds each turn from Bra to Sz23 onto FEq effective control of Africa can seem to be maintained. No defense of the transport (or 2) is really required unless marauding axis subs are present, and they can be fairly easily dealt with a few defensive subs, a destroyer or 2 and air support when/if required, a fair trade in resources for the allies it seems.
Long term is seems only the Japanese can affect this shuck, and as it is close to home for the US it would seem easy to defend for the US than to attack for the Japanese. Flowing navy for the Japs to the south atlantic takes them out of position for a long time for minimal tactical influence.
Thoughts/comments?
Malachi
-
By shucking small builds each turn from Bra to Sz23 onto FEq effective control of Africa can seem to be maintained. No defense of the transport (or 2) is really required unless marauding axis subs are present, and they can be fairly easily dealt with a few defensive subs, a destroyer or 2 and air support when/if required, a fair trade in resources for the allies it seems.
If there are Axis bombers on W. Eur and they control Egypt/Kenya/SA then SZ23 is in range of the bombers.
-
Control would have to be established first. The IC was built on US1 which wouldn’t help to establish control on its own and might not help that much initially. I think the US would still have to do a large push into Africa in Algeria then try to establish a small shuck to Europe pulling out the defensive fleet from Sz12. It would be up to the Japanese to take and HOLD those territories for axis bombers to hit Sz23. With a large enough Japanese transport force it would not be hard I suppose to drop 8-10 units to overcome a few allied units in Cng supported by air power in the USSR. I’m currently playing a game with 8 transports as Japan by about round 6-7. I prefer more transports and less ICs as Japan, gives more flexibility in projecting power/threats. I suspect the strategy is a bit too rigid/lacks flexibility. However, against a Japanese player who concentrates on ICs rather than transports it might be a viable option.
-
I’ve always wanted to try this but I always wind up spending that 15 IPC on something else.
-
Any time you build an industrial complex, you’re creating a new point for the Axis to attack, while slowing infrastructure development. So the question is not really whether a Brazil IC would be useful or not. It’s a question of how 15 IPCs are best spent.
If going Kill Germany First:
US1 you want to build a defensive fleet to escort transports to hit Algeria on US2. There’s no point in going to Algeria unless you bring some transports and ground units, so you want those too. The more transports and ground units you bring, the harder you will be to dislodge. Also, the more transports you bring, the earlier you can threaten Western Europe. Threatening Western Europe in a combination attack with UK means Germany will either have to pull units back from the Russian front (giving Russia more IPCs to work with), or abandon Western Europe. Either are fine. Once Western Europe is abandoned as a base for fighters and particularly bombers, the Allied fleets have far more freedom of movement, particularly for southwestern Africa and between East Canada and London.
If going Kill Japan First:
Alternatively, you want to race Japan’s two battleships, two carriers, 5-6 fighters, and bomber.
But in any event, if you’re using 15 IPC for an IC, you’re not helping your fleet infrastructure, whether Atlantic or Pacific. What you ARE doing is diverting attention away from what should be the focus of your attack, whether that be Africa, Europe, or the Pacific islands. Industrial complexes don’t fight. They don’t help shuttle ground units effectively, especially when they’re on an isolated territory like Brazil.
There’s things the Allies can do differently, like a sacrificial US transport to Algeria on US1 to start pressuring Germany immediately. But that’s neither here nor there - the idea is the same; 15 IPC spent on an industrial complex is not a good idea, at least until the Allies are dominating the game so much that it hardly matters any more.
Verdict: US industrial complex in Brazil: Not good. Unless you’re an athletic footwear company.
–
This is NOT the same as Japanese industrial complexes on the Asian mainland. The difference is that Asian mainland ICs allow the Japs to build pure tanks. Initially, Japan needs to focus on infantry production with very light tank coverage for blitzing. But depending on German progress, the focus will need to switch to tanks at some point, and at that point 14 IPC of transports gets only two tanks to the mainland, while a 15 IPC industrial complex gets three tanks. Furthermore, industrial complexes give a great effective boost to mobility, as supposing Japanese tanks are produced at Tokyo on one turn, the next turn they can only hit points on the Asian cost. In contrast, Japanese tanks produced on the Asian mainland can usually hit one or more of Caucasus, India, Sinkiang, China, and/or Yakut.
-
I agree. With Japan I usually build a IC on the Asian mainland and imediately begin building tanks and a few infantry. It works very effectivly.
-
Well if Japan does not build an IC at some point, and it would be silly NOT to build it on the asian mainland, then the limit of 8 units per turn with an income near 50 IPC would mean you would build all tanks and planes with ZERO infantry and artillery, which also means your are using 6 transports to move 6 tanks while building 2 planes and hoping to heck to be able to spend all your money.
I’m curiouis, how much in IPC would the US need to invest in order to transports forces to Africa and occupy SZ12 with impunity? When the allies take africa, how do they prevent Japan from taking it at will by turn 5 onwards, have allied fleet strength such that they can live in 3 atlantic sea zones with impunity? I have yet to see the allies win when they have huge navies in SZ12 AND SZ2 AND (Sz4 or Sz5), mind you I have yet to see most people in this forum even play 42, though I was schooled by a few who did play me, learned a heck of alot with those losses! And Dan, I consider my 3 games against you as all educational losses!
-
I’m curiouis, how much in IPC would the US need to invest in order to transports forces to Africa and occupy SZ12 with impunity?
Would you say there would be a difference in this number if Germany built 2 bombers on G1? How about 3-4 Mediterranean subs on G2? Of course you would, and you would be right to do so. So the real question should be what should US do and under what conditions?
-
I’m curiouis, how much in IPC would the US need to invest in order to transports forces to Africa and occupy SZ12 with impunity? When the allies take africa, how do they prevent Japan from taking it at will by turn 5 onwards, have allied fleet strength such that they can live in 3 atlantic sea zones with impunity? I have yet to see the allies win when they have huge navies in SZ12 AND SZ2 AND (Sz4 or Sz5), mind you I have yet to see most people in this forum even play 42, though I was schooled by a few who did play me, learned a heck of alot with those losses! And Dan, I consider my 3 games against you as all educational losses!
- Regarding US fleet, it depends on how much G invests on airforce and the presence of Japanese planes on WE. The UK and the US usually buy 1 carrier on each on the 1st round, along with destroyers. Afterwards if you carefully plan your moves you can just have 1 huge fleet for the amphibious assaults and do the US shuck with transports from SZ1 to SZ2, requiring only protection from Axis bombers.
The thing is that the Axis can turn WE into a massive airbase but the fighters can’t reach everywhere and without them the bombers are much less effective. So you’ll need 2 fleets, one that can defend against the fighters/bombers and the other against just the bombers. However this will also mean a lot of thinking of how to properly set the US shuck. A 2nd UK or US carrier can also be very handy. Depends on outmaneuvering your opponent or vice-versa.
- Regarding Africa the Allies must commit enough units to clear it out of German/Japanese units until turn 4/5. Usually 2 landings (US1 and US2) in a total of 8 units are enough, supported by airforce. Unless the Japs are completely focusing on Africa, on which case Russia has less to worry against on Asia. And even if the Japs are focusing on Africa, the UK/US can split tasks: US liberates Africa while the UK reinforces Russia through SZ4. The key issue is that Africa is a diversion of the main fighting against Russia: you should spare it the minimum resources necessary to achieve your objectives there since you are diverting them from the main fight.
-
My point regarding the cost of a fleet sitting in sz12 is that its cheaper to have a factory in Brazil than a fleet in Sz12. Of course they are not of the same capability so its an apples to oranges comparison. But the goal of a Sz12 fleet or a Brazil factory is to maintain control of Africa. It remains to be seen if the factory can do this however.
I really need to play the game more and with more varied opponents. I find that in latter rounds, say beyond round 5, it becomes tricky to place forces in Africa for the Allies. You’re quite right Hobbes with two fleets defending against just bombers and fighters and bombers of the axis.
The goal of the allies should be the bare minimum of fleet to get units to Europe/Russia, no surprise there. So, usually the fleet defending against bombers only sits in Sz2 and is American shucking to England. Where does the Brit fleet sit ideally or typically? Sz4 is often where I find the british fleet but it is a choice of necessity, I don’t like it as it does not threaten Germany or E. Europe. The americans also have some fleet mixed with this British fleet to transport from GBr to wherever.
So we have only allied 2 fleets in this example. Is this a normal situation for most by round 4-6? OK, so say Africa is in allied hands but lightly defended. In the tunnel vision like games I play, Japan has 5-6 transports and is shucking from Japan to FIC and at some point 1-2 Jap ICs are built when they cannot effectively spend their IPCS in Japan alone.
So, the Japanese now look at Africa in allied control but lightly defended. With a fleet in FIC it becomes easy to land in force in Africa, it takes few transports out of the FIC/Japan shuck but Japan can afford to get more and the IPCs in Africa pay for them. However, it only makes sense for the Japanese to do this if they can get value of it. If it forces the allies to move the fleet from Sz 2 to Sz12 to land forces in Africa to counter the modest Jap invasion it really hurts the shuck to Gbr, lots of allied transports doing nothing with lots of IPCs in defense defending them doing nothing for a round. IF the allies are not diverted by this, then they lose africa. The Jap forces are more useful in FIC than allied units in Algeria are, its much less a waste of resources to withdraw forces from africa for the Japs than it is for the Americans.
The Brazil factory allows a small but constant trickle of forces into Africa. The Japs looking at a small supply chain of units coming online might not think it worth it to attempt the taking of Africa.
Again, I have yet to see an allied victory when they have a multi-carrier fleet in Sz12, another in Sz5 and another strong fleet in Sz2 that can fend off a multi bomber attack. With 3 fleets in those locations, all are vulnerable to bombers in Weu. Every bmr there must be defended against in 3 places/fleets, a nice tie up of resources.
-
Well, I still consider Africa’s liberation usually a secondary objective for the Allies. Drop those 8 units and you should clear it plus have some leftovers to deal with any Japanese landings. Meanwhile since you’re not landing anymore units on Africa you can vacate SZ12 and you usually can join both the UK and US fleets on SZ6 and threaten Germany, Karelia and E. Europe, unless Germany has gone crazy on buying planes from the beginning.
The Japanese might go for Africa but this move forces the Germans to react, giving the Allies back some initiative on Europe. And while the UK may lose part or nearly all of Africa, as long as its IPC level stays on the 28-32 that’s not an immediate problem. And it is easier for the UK/US to send units than it is for J.
The problem I see with the Brazilian IC is that you’ll be spending 8 or more IPCs each turn to use on Africa, but those units usually are never able to break through to India, so they will secure Africa but will be bottlenecked on Jordan/Persia.
-
I totally agree with the bottleneck problem in Jordan/Persia, in particular with larger valuable targets. But, with only a few pieces, but a long line of them, you would end up with a dead zone in Jordan/Persia. The US would/could have air support from Russian territory to help in this dead zone and the Japs tend to have most of their air tied up in Fortress Europe. If the US 8 or so IPCs ends up being an even trade for Jap IPCs and control over Africa is maintained, I say advantage allies.
I’m not sure if it is easier or that much easier for the allies to get forces to Africa, depends on the philosophy of the players and direction of the game.
I find that the allies tend to play on the edge, that the supply chain cannot be broken and flexibility often costs resources that are not are can not be invested. Ok, say the game has settled down to a typical rhythm, allied control of Africa, US fleet in Sz2, allied fleet shucking into/onto europe. At some point the allies make a choice that requires their supply chain of reinforcements to be steady, I find this occurs when they first land in the Karelia area and expect to live a round. At this point, does the allied fleet have enough strength/flexility/position to now start landing forces in Algeria? Even there, it takes them a few turns to move up to and take Egypt and move into the rest of Africa unless you move allied transports past Sz12 to Sz17/Sz23, in which case they are out of position to continue to shuck.
The Japs are attacked by the brits and start out with 1 transport typically, and typically build 3 on J1. A shuck between Sz36 to Sz60/61 develops dropping off 8 units per turn. An extra transport every round or two means all the output from Japan gets moved and slowly islands have units taken off to the mainland and attacks on Australia and New zealand with threats to Alaska and hawaii perhaps never pursued as lost opportunity of those units in asia is greater than the reward.
By round 5, and IC should be built on FIC and or India. I find it tempting to wander around with the Jap fleet but I avoid it with anything but the odd lone transport or sub. So, with a large Jap fleet in Sz34 BBs and CVs you can shuck infantry from India to Egypt that start out in Japan as builds but quickly move to FIC then India. Tanks that you build in the FIC and Ind ICs just drive there, clear Persia then as non combat moves drive them from India to Trans Jorden. Tanks there can hit Karelia or allied forces that move up to Lib, and Libya can be hit by the Japanese navy though it takes them out of play and subjects them to attack from Sz12. If the allies get too strong in Lib, pull back to East Africa and hammer them when they move into Egypt in force.
I’m not sure what the Germans would have to do if the Japs just used an idle fleet to hop from FIC to Egy, the capital ships are often under used, 4 transports must be reserved to offload from Japan and it would only take 2 transports to move meaningful amounts of infantry and artillery from India to Egypt with tanks just driving there. A large Jap force in Egypt is way more flexible than a large allied force in Algeria. Mind you, switching gears to Algeria means a jump in threat to Weu but only a 1 turn increase followed by a decrease once this is abandoned by the allies.
Suggested Topics
