Alpha +3 = UK1 Factory in EGY breaks the game?

@Ruanek:

On the other hand, building it UK1 might essentially invite Germany to do Sea Lion, which could be beneficial for the Allies (the USA and USSR enter the war earlier, troops are committed to London, etc.).

I think this has been the first time I have actually seen a reason to bait Germany into doing sealion. If the Uk builds the IC in Egypt on UK1 and spends the rest of its income in England, then on UK2 builds 2 infantry and a tank in Egypt with the rest spent in England, Germany might just be tempted enough to try sealion. Even if the Germans take London, the extra forces in Egypt will tip the balance against Italy and bring the US and the Soviets into the war, which means London would only be occupied for 2 turns at most. Now there is something to think about  8-)

@Ruanek:

On the other hand, building it UK1 might essentially invite Germany to do Sea Lion, which could be beneficial for the Allies (the USA and USSR enter the war earlier, troops are committed to London, etc.).

Yes, that was one of the reasons to bait Germany in Alpha 2.  If one saw Japan pull out far from home (SZ 36 with no naval base for instance) one might invite Germany to attack England (by pulling out all your planes and landing them in Africa for instance) and have America jump into SZ 6 smashing what Japan built + taking Korea and/or Tokyo.

Now Russia can attack too.

Gargantua Im with you on this one its a great stratgey though I stop short at saying it breaks the game. There are two things to consider I think:

1. is it really 4 less infantry you can afford to buy? Some might argue that you’re still better off buying the 4 extra infantry the AA “replace” just to have a bit more on the defense to make sealion even more costly to the Germans and thus less likely, the “Might as well just end ll threats to my capitol” argument if you will.
2. If the UK places an IC in Egypt on UK1 then they are showing their intention to move their main effort in Europe away from London and in Africa. While this is a perfectly logical move to me (most of the UKs economy is based in Africa/mid-east) wouldnt a German player then be justified in spending more of its resources in the Med. against Africa?

Im not saying the IC in Egypt is a bad idea, on the contrary, I think its one of the best I’ve heard I just dont think it breaks the game.

The only reasonable counter I can think is letting Italy get Paris and the other French Territories. Those 19 pludered IPCs plus the 4IPC from France, 3 IPC from SFR (I don’t remember if it was 3 or 2) Plus the starting 10 would get them 38 IPCs plus objectives if any. This could give Italy enough points to get all their NOs and become a big force. Even if Germany will be slightly weaker, at least you will have two major powers in Europe.

Not bad, I’d buy the transport UK1 and still buy the IC on UK2, or maybe UK3 now that I could move something like 6 units a turn from SA to Egypt

Well, with a transport you are still limited to 3 units a round.  With a complex you are up to 6 (S. Afr +3, Egypt +3).  I do like one in C. Persia however, and it is far safer from the Italians than Egypt.  Granted, Egypt is a stronger position to deny them objectives.

Personally even with the 4 AA, I’d still go 6 Infantry/Fighter UK1. Lock it down, start to get the jump on Atlantic/Med air supremacy.

An IC elsewhere (Egypt/C Persia/Iraq) can wait til UK 2 and observation of German/Italian response.

@Gargantua:

Sounds like the best way to get the British into the game early.  Everything goes to airpower/navy gearing up for a Norway/Normandy landings UK 4/5/6 etc.

Repeat of history: Hit in the Axis soft belly!

I think that a Factory for U.K.1 in Egypt is a good bet especially if Germany doesnt look like its going to commit to a sea lion, I know that Round 1 is still to early to tell what their going to do. Thats why I would try it about 50% of the time, I would also want to see how the dice are treating me and what Germany did on their opener.
  I have not played the U.K. much in our 30 or so ALPHA+2 games maybe 5 or 6 times and I know that 2 times I did purchase a Factory on 1 and put in Egypt and the Allies won those games. I also have seen where Italy has taken the Factory in Egypt and in the last 12 to 15 games the U.K. has moved away from that strat. I would try it a few times unless I see Germany sending planes down to S. Italy or Libya or in a later round build Naval units in the med ( S. France)  or a Minor Factory that borders on the Med.
 Start a new thread that say’s tried it and made it or tried it and didnt make it
      MY FACTORY IN EGYPT

IMO I think a UK1 Egypt factory is too risky.  If Germany is on the ball London will fall G3,  and that means you only get one build out of Egypt.  You might get liberated in a couple of turns but by that time you have probally built Italy a factory in egypt.

I’ve been thinking about it and I think that since a minor IC is only 12IPCs it might be better to place it on UK1. Britian has a bit more flexability with its starting economy, so it could probably afford to spend the 12 IPC on the IC in Egypt, if it spends the rest of its economy on defense in London

@Clyde85:

I’ve been thinking about it and I think that since a minor IC is only 12IPCs it might be better to place it on UK1. Britian has a bit more flexability with its starting economy, so it could probably afford to spend the 12 IPC on the IC in Egypt, if it spends the rest of its economy on defense in London

By not using the extra aa units in uk to prepare your defences, you actually are reverting back to alpha 2 defences for sealion.  Actually they are worse because the aa guns don’t get a roll on defence.
4 less infantry =1 ic.  Wich means 4 less 2 s on defence

@Peck:

@Clyde85:

I’ve been thinking about it and I think that since a minor IC is only 12IPCs it might be better to place it on UK1. Britian has a bit more flexability with its starting economy, so it could probably afford to spend the 12 IPC on the IC in Egypt, if it spends the rest of its economy on defense in London

By not using the extra aa units in uk to prepare your defences, you actually are reverting back to alpha 2 defences for sealion.  Actually they are worse because the aa guns don’t get a roll on defence.
4 less infantry =1 ic.  Wich means 4 less 2 s on defence

Agreed.

Also, there is the option of a complex in C. Persia which is more secure and readily reinforced by the Russians from Volgorod if necessary.

@Gargantua:

Made the thread should be retitled.

Light British committment to the Middle East, breaks the game and buffs Italy out.

I’m still supporting a UK1 minor IC buy.

Just stating the fact that it probally wont break the game.

@Gargantua:

Well by the current setup it IS still broken?  Especially if the Allies are winning 9 out of 10 games.  (Which requires a ceratin amount of correct play)

I don’t in good concience see how the Allies can lose.

I think you need to put more threat on Russia.  I have not found it difficult for the axis to win yet.  I have seen some issues I think but they are all player related.

1)  Too much emphasis on warships in the Atlantic
2)  Germany 1 attacks spread way too thin
3)  Germany/Italy not working in concert
4)  Germany not threatening Russia too effectively
5)  Timid Japan in Russia (The Amur issue is a non-starter, just friggin attack already.)
6)  Too much concern over London.

Note:  Berlin, Rome, Paris, St. Petersburg, Stalingrad, Cairo, Moscow, and Warsaw give you victory.  You dont NEED London to win. So why are you bothering with it?  Threaten England enough so they spend a couple rounds building defense giving Italy a break and beat up the Russians.  I think too many players are stuck in the “Gotta do Sea Lion” mindset.