Perhaps the “Sealion” tag should not apply to this thread. "Sealion"normally refers to a credible invasion threat against London before Russia falls.
Thread ought to mention it’s a Total Victory scenario (it is, isn’t it?).
I expect Japan should not build an IC on Alaska, Germany should not build an IC on France. Rather, I’d say the IPCs should normally be used for units.
- Alaska: What does Japan get out of an IC? 15 IPCs puts up to two units on Alaska; contrast to 14 IPC for two transports, one offloading from Japan to Buryatia, another offloading from Buryatia to Alaska each turn - and transports have the advantage of being able to redirect to Western US or other points.
Yes, you gain the ability to push pure tanks, or fighters, or do a response-build to navy. But all those issues should already be taken care of; Japan should have destroyer and air cover already in range against Western US’s sea zone; a committed defense of Alaska really isn’t much use if Japan’s not also threatening pressure - that is, an IC’s theoretical benefits are unlikely to apply in practice.
In practice, transports are better - more flexible and more likely to be useful in the normal range of situations. That’s provided you control the Pacific and have destroyers and air in range to hunt any US Pacific builds but if you’re trying to develop serious pressure on Alaska that should be a given.
- France: Again, Axis get better build response options, but again Axis ought to be brute-forcing things along anyways, then I’d expect Germany and/or Japan to be brute-forcing a destroyer/carrier fleet, not building an IC on France.
Again it’s theory versus practice. Theoretically maybe you could say you’re going to produce six units on France for an instant fleet that the Allies can’t counter. But the Allies get a warning signal when the IC goes up, and the IC itself costs 15. Then what? You’re still limited on income; if you drop two carriers two fighters two destroyers for an “instant fleet” that’s 64 IPC, Germany just doesn’t really have the income to make a France IC consistently worth its cost. Even if Germany looted Moscow and has some Africa income, the benefit of the France IC is still questionable. But even then, again, say G7 drops IC, UK7 drops a load of submarines northwest of London, and along with air threatens any new Germany navy buy. What I’m getting at is the German IC isn’t “clever”, it doesn’t really offer any new options unless the Allies players are bad - otherwise Germany still needs to get protected destroyers and air to hunt Allied subs out of the Atlantic (so those subs can’t act as cheap fodder for Allied air), and even then, Germany has to both survive off France, and survive again pushing towards East Canada. There’s just no way to be “clever” about it if the Allies player is on the ball; Axis will have to brute force it, and if it’s a question of brute force then Axis should spend less on ICs that don’t fight, and more on units that do.
Far as dozens of transports to move in on US East - I’d say that’s not my expectation, again, even in a Total Victory game. Germany protects two transport fleet that post off East Canada and France; empty transports move to France, pick up units that walked over from Germany/Italy, then dump to East Canada. The same fleet also is an invasion threat against London, and if East Canada isn’t squashed consistently, the same forces threaten East US. Meanwhile Japan is dumping to Alaska and pushing West Canada, from where it threatens West US and trades Central US; together Germany and Japan just bleed US out in trades (assuming Africa/Australia etc are Axis). So you won’t really need dozens of Atlantic transports to push on US East; you’re dumping to East Canada anyways. A dozen, sure, but multiple dozens ought not to be necessary considering Japan pushing from the west.