I’ve played the WWII scenario in Civ2, but it takes too much micro management. I love all the civs, but usually don’t play the scenarios.
Best Allied strategy
I just wanted to get everyone’s opinion about the best Allied strategy. The poll question is somewhat limited to the physical board game though, the factory limitation doesn’t exist in any pc based version I’ve ever played. I’ve found this to be a very good strategy because it slows Japan down (they’ll only be able to place 1 factory in Asia). Given Japan’s limited finances early on, and the counterattacks this makes possible in every game I’ve seen it used in the Allies are able to effectively gang up on Germany and knock them out before Japan has been able to advance down and take out the factories in India and Sinkiang. It also had the added benefit of slowing their advance into Russian territory, which allowed Russia to build up more than it might otherwise have been able.
Anyhow, I’m just curious where this falls into everyone’s ‘list’ of best Allied moves? Is it a top 10, top 5, top 3, useless, etc.
Factories are generally a bad idea for either side.Â It may make sense in India or Sinking, but even then I think it is substandard play as the UK/US can simply pump troops into Asia via Karelia-Moscow-Novo if desired.Â Japan might be able to use an India IC to push troops to Africa, but I think it is better for Japan to concentrate on Russia/Asia instead or if you are determined to go to Africa as Japan, you can simply send them from FIC which is within reach of transports.
Purchasing factories results in the following bad or inefficient things:
– At the same cost as two transports, it can deliver fewer infantry (although more tanks - but infantry are generally a better buy).
– It can be strategically bombed for free by the other side (want to spend another $5 for an AA?).Â While in theory transports are also vulnerable to attack, it just doesn’t happen often in practice as attacking them after R1 or R2 costs more for the attacker than it is worth.
– It does not have the flexibility of transports, i.e. the units may only be delivered in one location.Â
There is no reason for either side to buy an IC as they can do the same or better with two transports.
I’m not really a fan of IC’s as the Allies, but I will use them as a change of pace occassionally.Â Infact, I believe CC and I have used them in a game or 2 while playing with each other and against.
I will buy them with Japan.
I think there comes a time where they can be valuable.Â Where you can afford to send a tranny or 2 to HI or Ala, Aus, Nz, etc.Â In which case it may be better to buy an IC to replace the tranny or 2 you send across the globe.Â And with these IC’s I’ll use them to get some tanks to the mainland.
Usually for me this is once I have the Inf secure Asia and I need more of a Punch to pressure Moscow.
The reason I don’t like them usually as the Allies is, it limits your play.Â If you go IC on Ind in rd 1, now everyone in the game knows what you are doing.Â You’ve committed to troops in Ind for several turns for something you proabably aren’t going to be able to hold for the whole game.
Like 221B says, your much better off going trans to Kar, then to Mos or Cauc where you can get to North Asia or the Middle East respectively.
May take you a turn or 2 longer to set up but you are better off in the long run.
I have to echo the posts of others here… an Allied IC is a bad move.
US IC somewhere in the world? Why? No better place for the US to stage against Germany than direct from Eastern US. Versus Japan? Not worth it. Why build an IC where you cna only build 2 units AND it is located away from the coast where you could later build land AND naval forces to invade Japan.
UK? Again why. Best possible position to attack Germany, with no risk of Germany attacking your existing facility with a ground based strike. India? Unless you do EVERYTHING possible as the allies to defend it, Japan is going to take it, period. And if UK pours that many resources into India, Germany is going to pounce on Russia big-time.
Russia? WORST possible move in the game. Sure, build a Yakut IC, defended by your consilidated INF and tank from the Eastern territories. That is 5 less INF that Germany has to chew through the round after Russia buys it, and perhaps more later as Russia places some units at the new IC to defend against recurrent strikes by Japan… not to mention the free SRB run Japan would get to destroy an addiitional 1-2 Russian INF’s per round. Not to mention that, no matter what Russia does, Japan WILL take that IC in Yakut, and then start building westerward bound forces to use against Russia.
Germany building an IC is suicide, period; unless the Axis is already so heavilly dominating the game that it is effecftively over anyway.
As Japan? Well, once my tranny’s are built up and forces are flowing in a torrent toward Russia I MIGHT build a mainland IC. But probably not. I’d rather just keep building tranny’s and filling them up creating an unstoppable wave of forces heading toward Moscow. As far as supporting Africa as Japan: I’ll mess with Africa after I take Russia. I can build in Moscow then and send tanks to Africa to seize it. And by using tranny’s as Japan, as soon as Russia falls, my forces turn across the Pacific and strike at the US on multiple fronts in force… no delay to re-tool from land forces in Asia to naval forces to cross the Pacific.
Of course, if you have already won the game (either side) then party on :mrgreen:. I remember I once had taken Russia as Germany, but the Allies continued to play. I built a navy in the Med to go after UK, and sent it into the Altantic. I later built a factory in W. Europe so that I could directly reinforce my navy (taking losses from both Allied ships and planes) and still maintain pressure on the UK (keeping US transports from landing reinforcements).
Russia?Â WORST possible move in the game.Â Sure, build a Yakut IC, defended by your consilidated INF and tank from the Eastern territories.Â That is 5 less INF that Germany has to chew through the round after Russia buys it, and perhaps more later as Russia places some units at the new IC to defend against recurrent strikes by Japan… not to mention the free SRB run Japan would get to destroy an addiitional 1-2 Russian INF’s per round.Â Not to mention that, no matter what Russia does, Japan WILL take that IC in Yakut, and then start building westerward bound forces to use against Russia.
As always, it depends on the situation……A not often used resource for the allies:
A Russian ic in Yak can be a nice tactical resource at the start of the tech war. In case Jap gets heavies (maybe a lucky last resource), its nice to build that Rus ic in Yak (and move the aa into Yak). Now Jap has the tough choice to take it or not. If they take it, they are vulnurable to allied SBR runs. If not, than Jap can get huge cash flow problems.
In some case (but less often than the Rus Yak ic) UK can do the same trick in Ind. Since both UK and Rus were already in range of Jap SBR runs, it wont make a lot of difference.