bedog last edited by
OK, do not want to get into a fight but…
Not fighting, arguing
Without UK reinforcing Africa via India… Africa is LOST to UK, period. Anything less is abysmal German play. The US landing in Algeria is NOT an issue if Germany still ahs their BB and TRN in the Med. The ARM and INF from the Egypt attack in G1 raid UK IPC’s in Africa, the original Algeria forces, plus reinforcements from Southern, hold the US at bay, then kick them out.
Meanwhile, Germany has NO allied reinforcements to face in the Karelia/Archangel avenue of attack… so those gains are free. All Germany has to counter is the West Russia Stack, wich it will begin doing in G2 with their Eastern Stack.
Russia start to lose income, UK gets down to half income about the time India falls and Japan starts BUILDING there… to send TANKS against Caucuses about the tiem Germany is laying seige to it…
It is just a really bad move. You MIGHT hold Japan back for a bit that way… but the opportunity cost is DREADFUL for Russia.
I guess my point can be summarized as follows: Not everyone follows the standard play
That’s the problem with any military plan. They’re watertight, up until the first shots are fired, then they all go down the drain and you have to improvise and come up with alternatives.
I am already comitted to the next 2 games (one against Octo’s “new” Japan strat, and a re-match with Tri with me as Allies), r I would volunteer to take you on and prove it to ya
If you want to put this thread on hold, e-mail me in a few weeks and we can play this game out… you as allies with a comittment to 2 Allied IC’s in Turn 1, me as Axis…
I take your word for it, no need to prove it in a game.
Also, I play A&A purely as a social phenomenon, if I can’t see the face of my opponent, I don’t play
I have to agree with NCS here on the point of putting the ICs in India/ Sinkiang… Japan is too strong to hold off with those ICs baring a string of bad dice rolls.
Japan can take BOTH of those IC’s, even with the US and UK pouring all they can into them.
India + USA can only pour 5 units worth per turn wheras Japan (especially if they go IC on J1 in FIC) can probably manage by J2 or J3 to have a 2/ 3-1 advantage in units. Plus, the extra units spent on Japan in this manner (including the 30 allied IPCs just getting the ICs up and running) will sap from the ability to protect Russia.
As Germany, by G2 I would be licking my chops because I would know the US/ UK are not going to be able to mount a serious offensive against WEu for a few turns, thus giving me the ability to throw everything I can against Russia. And, as was stated before, I will own Africa and if the UK doesn’t bring the India troops over to counter, I would even consider pumping some more troops into Africa every turn in order to ensure that it stays German against any US counter.
An unfettered Germany free from Allied assaults = BIG problem for Russia by G3/ G4.
You got it Kyrial!
Even with the “Best Defense” poured into those IC’s… 2 FIGs each, plus an extra unit as UK (they can’t afford 3 FIGs), those IC’s still fall.
And with THAT amount of IPC’s into Asia… Germany is going to hold Russia NLT G4.
AgentOrange last edited by
Thank you guys for reviving this topic. No posts had been made for a few months. And now that I’ve poured my heart out, I want to make some clarifications to what I’ve said:
I don’t have the map right in front of me, so someone please help me out. Sinkiang is the US territory on the left, right? If so, then I think that it would at least be a better choice than China. I still don’t think it would be the wisest thing to do. Especially given the turn order. Since Japan goes before the Americans, then there is a good chance that they will own China by the time it is the US’s turn.
I don’t think India is that great of an option either. One thing that might persuade me to put an IC in India is if I got it via Colonial Garrison. This would allow three more units to be able to defend it from the Japs. Then I would move my Inf. from Persia into India, and maybe also my fighter from the carrier in the Indian Ocean.
Did everyone forget aboput Australia? If the idea for the Allies in this situation is to put pressure on Japan, then maybe the Sinkiang IC is a somewhat better idea if coupled with an IC in Australia. (especially from Colonial Garrison) This would give Japan two wonderful new fronts to worry about.
Without UK reinforcing Africa via India… Africa is LOST to UK, period.Â Anything less is abysmal German play.Â The US landing in Algeria is NOT an issue if Germany still ahs their BB and TRN in the Med.Â The ARM and INF from the Egypt attack in G1 raid UK IPC’s in Africa, the original Algeria forces, plus reinforcements from Southern, hold the US at bay, then kick them out.
I’ve had some success kicking the Germans out of Africa by placing a US IC in Brazil. On turn one, buy the factory and a transport and whatever else you feel like buying. Place the factory in Brazil, send the loaded east coast transport down to Brazil. Next buy, get a destroyer and an Inf+tank to place in Brazil. There is no way Germany can counter the US pressure without spending AT LEAST 7 ipc per turn to ship down to Africa. This only helps the Russians. Meanwhile, the UK is kept in the money. The slowing of the US surge toward Europe is worth keeping the UK wealthy, and when Africa is secure, the US can just shutter that Brazilian factory. Maybe use it to send tanks to Africa to send to the far east to help Russia fight where needed.
Interesting concept… Seems like a VERY high opportunity cost… but perhaps a “gadget play” to keep in mind for the future…
More RE the Brazilian factory;
One has to consider the cost of letting the Germans run rampant in Africa, too. Not only is the UK impoverished, Germany gets fat. I don’t have the board here with me, but UK holdings in Africa (minus Madagascar) are what, 8 IPC? Without the Brazil factory, the US has only one Africa invasion target, but with it the whole east coast of Africa is exposed. Plus, it positions the US to have troops in Africa to possibly be used in a southern assault on Europe. Germany has countered this move in the past, but at the cost of buying a substantial Mediterranean fleet. We had a game where Germany ended the game with a 12-piece navy off Italy!
If you play with NAs, the Brazilian factory works wonderfully with mechanized infantry. The major drawback is that once it has served its purpose the factory is pretty much useless. But for 15 IPC, I’ve found it very useful.
So you use regular trannies and have them make an extra move to get to south of the Sahara.
And… unlike the Brazil factory, when the need for US in Africa is over, those trannies work JUST as well for sending troops to Western Europe, Norway, Southern Europe… or perhaps even through the Panama Canal to go Island Hoping…
I’ll admit, the US IC in Brazil on US1 is an interesting concept. Certainly Germany cannot counter it (with the Navy, unless you’re going to bring the sub down from North Atlantic coupled with the Battleship from the Med, and that’s without the US intercepting it with destroyers from East USA, Panama, the remnant of the Pacific fleet and the new destroyer that would be placed off Brazil).
I’d have to do a study to see how this affects US ability to get a shuck going into Europe… sometimes I feel the problem with those of us who have played the game so long (classic and then revised as well) is that we tend to fall into predictable patterns: R1 is West Russian stack, Uk1 is fleet, take troops from India to retake Egypt, US1… R2… etc) but the game is not static and it’s always interesting to see how a move like this might play out. And of course, to see what potential German/ Japanese counters it might garner.
As for the UK IC in Australia, I don’t like it… again it’s something that can pretty easily be countered by Japan at a minimal delay to the push on Russia. Now it WILL delay them slightly, but I also feel that as Japan I usually don’t go for Australia/ NZ until I am well into Asia (to try and bang out a few more IPCs) but with an IC there, I WOULD go there ASAP to stop the British from developing a moderate fleet to harass my transports. Thus the UK would lose the IC (15ipcs) plus the IPCs themselves from the islands and that would be gone every turn. It’s too risky for them, IMHO.
Oh, and I usually don’t play with NAs so the colonial garrison isn’t really an option… you make some good points though if you are playing with it.
I have played with Aussie IC and it is only effective if you have a committed US Fleet to combine with… It is also pertinent if your Fleet in India Survives. If you play this strat make sure that Russia can manage a frontal war against Germany limited Anglo-Saxon intervention except in Africa at least at the beginning…
I am sorry… anything that diverts UK IPC’s from the fight with Germany is a losing proposition…
That IC means no AC for UK in UK1. That IC means German fleet merge in G1. That IC means German control of the Atlantic in G2. That IC means Russia kicked back to Russia by G3.
Doh looks like someone else discovered the Brazilian IC!
I keep this in my back pocket in case I want to gun after Japan mostly, but need to keep Africa out of German hands. It’s very effective if you’re just looking to boot the Germans out of Africa; send 2 tran and both destroyers down that way, and 1 fighter and 1 bomber to Brazil on turn 1. It should be a cinch to contest Africa at this point with 3 inf flowing into the heart of Africa + 1 fig/bomber messing around, and you won’t fear any German navy/airforce because of your destroyers and your ability to make more ships.
The rest of the money can be spent towards making an island-hopping navy in the Pacific. Perhaps you need to make 1 carrier on turn 1 to help the UK defend himself from the German navy, but past that you can fool around with Japan =P
If you’re doing a shuck to Europe there’s no real benefit to building a Brazilian IC. It costs you IPCs that can’t be used later against Europe, and you could as easily drop troops in Algeria and march them down while your transport fleet.
Octopus last edited by
Brazilian IC does not work to the Allied advantage. Time is something the Allies cannot afford to squander. Run a few scenarios and see if you can make the Brazilian operation more cost/time efficient than running from the East Coast.
Agreed that the US can keep the Germans out of the south atlantic by virtue of their current naval power plus the remnants of the pacific fleet. But you can equally keep the Germans at bay in Africa with a traditional attack via East USA PLUS in any case Germany has to pump additional troops into Africa past G2 in order to keep a concerted effort by the Allies from their hegemony of Africa developing. I’ve messed around with sending additional troops in there. It can work if the Allies are only half-hartedly going after Africa (focusing, say, on either a KJF or troops into Russia via the northern front).
It takes a few turns to really develop (getting the IC, placing units, the additional transports) and all this time Germany will have control over Africa plus be a threat to the North Atlantic especially if UK has not gone heavy navy to keep that baltic fleet at bay.
It could work if the Americans focus on establishing the north atlantic first as their playground and then decides to pump to Africa… especially if Japan has moved into East Africa, but this is later on. Then again, I’ve usually found the KGF strat to be my fav so I might be biased here… I just think it’s more plausible.
Still, I think trying to throw some different tactics into the mix makes for more interesting games!
Still, I think trying to throw some different tactics into the mix makes for more interesting games!
Yes indeed. That’s one reason I love the NAs. They make every game radically different. I’ve posted this elsewhere, but my friends and I roll dice for as many NAs as we have agreed to. This adds an element of chance that we like better than each player selecting. If players get to select their NAs, the same ruts will develop.
In answer to the original topic of this thread, I have almost always build the first Japanese factory in Kwangtung, if for no other reason than that it is so easily fortified immediately. If the main thrust of the Japanese attack it towards Moscow, I have had some success building the second Japanese factory in Buryatra (or whatever that Russian territory adjoining Bury is.) If things have been going well for the Japanese, they should have 4 transports off Japan that can unload directly into Bury; They build 3 tanks for Kwangtung, 2 inf for Bury, and shuck over as many men as they can afford to build to Bury. This becomes an irresistable force surging towards Moscow. We once saw a Japanese factory built in Egypt. That was a wild game.
And more on the Brazilian factory; the main reason I don’t like the east coast>algeria rout into africa is that it exposes the US fleet to German air units. The brazil>west africa rout is doable with one transport, lands troops in Africa on US2, and the US boats are fairly immune from attack (barring some ballsy German naval maneuvers). And really, the US is wealthy enough to build a factory that will, if it serves it’s main purpose, be rendered obsolete. You send US bombers on SBRs over germany, knowing they might go poof, in the hope it will cost Germany money…for the same 15 ipc the US can deny germany all the IPCs in Africa, forever. The secret is to stop feeding that factory when you don’t need it anymore.
In all the games I’ve played where Germany did well, they took and held Africa for long spells. As the allies, I’ve lately been willing to let south asia go if I must, but you gotta keep Africa.
I think the idea of a brazillian IC is really useless. Lets compare what is more effective at taking africa, shall we?
IC in brazil method:
US1: Build factory in brazil, move 2 inf, art, armor to brazil with two transports
US2: In brazil, build 1 transport, 1 arm, 1 inf, land two transports wherver
Note - At this point, if the US is contesting africa, they have two boatloads which is tough to counter.
US3: Drop 1 inf, 1 arm from brazilian transport in africa, move other two transports back to pick up newly built X?
So, at the end of round 3, you have dropped 6 troops in africa. You are limited by brazil to drop 3 a round, limiting the use of your original transports. If you want to drop more, you have to shuffle back to eastern to do so.
US1: Build two transports in eastern, build two arm in eastern (and shuffle inf). Move two transports with 2 inf, art, arm to brazil seas.
US2: Bring two transports from eastern to drop troops in brazil, bring two boatloads from brazil to africa
US3: Have two trans that dropped in africa grab brazilian troops and drop in africa.
So, using the IC method at the end of US3 you have spent 31 IPCs on africa. Using the transport method, you have spent 26 IPCs on africa. Troopwise, the IC method gives you 6 troops dropped in africa, while the transport method (for less IPCs!) gives you 8 troops.
Now, if you wanted to keep supply lines going with the transport method, you’d have to build extra transports in US 2 to shuffle with the trans in brazil. However, with 8 troops already in africa it seems unlikely that you would have to, and you could just wait for another drop in US 5. The key, as ncswitch put it, is that at the end of africa, you have 15 IPCs of waste in brazil. Using transports, you have those same IPCs still usable, and necessary for the US. It’s a no brainer for me…
US could bring two transports down, but I think I said somewhere above that all it takes is one. Just because Brazil can produce 3 units per turn doesn’t mean it has to. Once the factory is established the US can use discretion as to how much, if any, force to produce in Brazil.
It still just seems like a waste of the initial investment of 15 IPC’s…
For $1 more, I get 2 trannies that I can use for the same purpose, then, when Africa is locked up, those same 2 trannies get used for European (or even Pacific) operations, where as the Brazil IC just gets mothballed and becomes a target for rading Japan ships…
I think the Brazilian complex, like I mentioned before, is fine if you’re mainly gunning after Japan but need to keep the Germans out of Africa so the Germans don’t defeat the UK/Russia. The US is usually relegated to retaking Africa in any case, so you spend a small number of IPCs along with some airforce to duel with the Germans in Africa while you’re building a large navy to screw up the Japanese plans. If you simply rely on a normal Algerian shuck, you risk losing transports to fighters in Western Europe.
But like everyone’s been saying, the Brazilian complex is not optimal if you’re going KGF, since the US will have enough protection in the waters against fighters and you want every IPC spent to be useful to you in the future.
What I fail to see is why you cannot shuck down to brazil, then to africa, then back again.
I’ll call 2 original eastern us transports EUST.
I’ll call 2 US1 built transports NT.
US1: EUST to brazil seas.
US2: EUST to africa (somewhere)
US3: EUST to brazil
US4: EUST to africa
US5: EUST to brazil
US6: EUST to africa
US1: Build NT
US2: NT to brazil
US3: NT to EUS
US4: NT to brazil
US5: NT to EUS
US6: NT to brazil
Every two rounds you get four units to africa if you want. The commitment of two transports is rather equivalent to the factory, but it seems to me that you can get troops there just as quickly and effectively, for cheaper, and with extra transports to use later if you go the transport route. Can you give me a 6 round breakdown of what you would do with the factory so I don’t make assumptions about transport buys vs. arm/inf?
Transports going to Algeria are susceptible to fighters stationed in Western Europe, that’s why.
Using Fiendishes method, you don;t HAVE to offload in Algeria…
You can offload from SZ17 to FWA or SZ23 into FEA or BC…
He is talking about a 2 round shuck… out of range of German AF…
Thank you switch. Sometimes I feel like people only hear what they want to hear.
but it seems to me that you can get troops there just as quickly and effectively, for cheaper, and with extra transports to use later if you go the transport route.
I see what you’re saying, but how is 4 units every 2 rounds “just as” quick and effective as 3 units every round from a complex? How is 2 transports cheaper than 1 complex? The only advantage in your way is use of transports later, which is ok, but not nearly what you’re advertising, and might not even be an issue in a KJF game which is the only case in which I’m defending the Brazilian complex.
Hmmm, well I guess it is not more effective, you’re right. I just went and looked at the numbers and by the end of round 6 the transport method would only yield you 12 units, while the factory method would yield you (assuming you use original 2 transports) 4 on round 2, 3 on round 3, 4, 5, 6. The method I would be advocating would require two extra transports to shuffle down to brazil, which obviously costs substantially more than the factory and only allows you to get 1 more unit there a turn.
I think I just have an aversion to having a factory around not doing anything later in the game, but in your case it would definitely be worth it. In every other case I would definitely suggest against a brazilian IC, but for the smallest amount of IPCs I guess the factory in brazil would have to be the way to go, assuming you just want to use the original EUS transports.