• @losttribe04:

    I would like to hear a reason, too.


    (looks you seriously in the eye)


  • 2007 AAR League

    If UK has it’s original 30 IPCs of territories, plus ALG & LIB & belorussia and maybe trading EEU or WEU it has enough income to produce more than 8 units per turn, with no other viable IC location to place those units.  In this situation I could see an ECA IC.

  • Sorry for going offtopic with this “ECan IC” but it just needed clarification.
    Very good explanation and yeah I can see an UK IC there then.

    Back to Norway! (I prefer the US btw since then he can build IC and spend 12IPC on Germany each round and get into the fray while spending the other money on Japan)

  • 2007 AAR League

    Don’t discount a UK IC in Norway. As long as you can foresee the UK earning at least 33 IPC’s then it makes more sense for the UK to build there. UK’s job is to provide an early buffer between Germany and Russia to allow Russia to turn it’s attention toward Japan. 11 UK units going into Europe every turn almost single-handedly matches Germany’s production which leaves the Russians free. That allows the US to land less units in Europe to maintain the Germany containment wall and send more units through Africa to protect the UK’s income and press Japan.

    I see no reason for the Allies to wait until the US can take Norway and build an IC there because the UK needs the income more than the US, by the time the US gets into position to take Norway their transport system is already completely set up, and the US production capacity is never seriously taxed so there is no need to build another IC when the transports are already there.

  • I think the UK or the US would benefit from a Norway IC the most. Russia already has two nearby, what better way to keep from getting crushed then letting your allies take some of the heat. Plus they can get into the battle faster and more consistently.


  • Moderator

    Any one of the three can really work, but I usually take it with UK, if for no other reason then they go before the US.  This gives you the easy 1-2-3 on Kar and then EE before Ger can counter without having to wait until the next UK turn to set up the 1-2-3 type attacks.

    If the US can take it, fine, but I won’t delibrately wait for them.

    I also like a UK IC because then you can drop trans right into sz 5.  So if you have your 4 trns there already and are stacking in Kar, you can drop a 5th or 6th and now directly assualt Berlin with 12 ground units + planes.

  • @DarthMaximus:

    If the US can take it, fine, but I won’t delibrately wait for them.

    If the US can take it the same round then I would wait, but if it means letting Germany getting extra income then I wouldn’t.

  • Ideally you want UK collecting $32 income.  With a Japan push in Asia, and an initial German push in Africa, that means Norway is required to even get CLOSE to that level.

    If UK’s income is cut too far too early, they cannot even afford to build their TRNs, let alone fill them with 4 INF, 4 ARM per turn.  $3 from Norway helps to solve that problem in a hurry by at least countering the loss of India.

  • The UK should focus on brining up income at first Russia should focus on keeping their capitol and the US should focus on getting into the fight.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Almost never, except under rare circumstances, should UK ever build an IC in Eastern Canada.

    However, USA offers flexibility.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 12
  • 2
  • 3
  • 76
  • 12
  • 8
  • 16
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures