Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

IC for US and UK



  • I will be playing as the US next game and am thinking about putting an IC in brazil rd 1. I will go africa heavy, and once africa is completely under control…I want to have the UK player put an IC in Egypt. This way we can flood africa with troops for a potential S.Europe landing, or send them towards india and the caucus mtns.

    Any comments?



  • Amon Sul plays that way.  You may want to check out several of his games and see how it has worked for him (he kicked my ass with it several times this season).



  • I actually like The brazil IC as a counter to a strong German move into africa. The US then is probably best off moving up to the middle east to feed caucasus before japan gets entrenched in the south, or you can split your US forces sending just enough to control africa and the rest doing the shuck-shuck up to northern europe.  Maybe I’m being closed-minded, but I do not see as much value in a UK IC in Egypt.  The uk is usually best served trying to dump into northern europe and I don’t think it helps to split her forces north and south.  In either case, keep in mind that Japan can usually trade the middle east very cost-effectively with its battleships and can often hit the middle east/egypt very hard with navy, air and armor so it can take a LOT of resources to consistently defend egypt.



  • @ncscswitch:

    Amon Sul plays that way.  You may want to check out several of his games and see how it has worked for him (he kicked my a** with it several times this season).

    Gargantua is another who tends to build the IC in Brazil.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I’ve only done the IC in Brazil in AARe, so I cannot really comment too much on its effectiveness in AAR.

    However, it is convenient to produce 3 units a round and dump them into Africa each round.  You can also hit S. Africa fast if need be.

    Anyway, to be honest, I prefer the UK IC in S. Africa for this.  But maybe the two together would make fast work of the Germans and allow the Allies a rather nice stack in Persia before Japan’s up and running in force.  From there, who knows, maybe a liberation and holding of India?



  • I think you can break down which approaches are best for maintaining which territories.

    Alg: Alg, Lib, AE (FEq, Con, IEA)
    Bra IC: SAf, Con, FEq, WAf (Ken, AE, IEA)
    Pan>Bra: WAf, FEq, Con

    I gamed out Brazil IC vs just coming from EUS and they’re about the same: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11874.msg318428#msg318428.

    Unless you really want to get to SAf. Then the Brazil IC seems better. But what’s your hurry? Both Brazil options are a bigger investment than the normal route (because either you’re buying an IC or having to move troops twice). And though they get to the western/southern African territories faster, the normal route gets to the northern/eastern faster – without the extra IPC/transport/time investment.

    I say SAf IC or just retake Africa the old-fashioned way.



  • @Francis:

    I will be playing as the US next game and am thinking about putting an IC in brazil rd 1.
    Any comments?

    Good idea.
    US1 put factory in Brazil
    US2 buy tranny, inf and art, and move panama-destroyer down for escort
    US3 buy fighter, inf and tank, and continue this for rest of the game



  • I am not sure that is a cost effective option.

    $18 per turn after the initial 2 turns investment of $30.

    USA spends 1/3 of their income in their first two turns on setting up Brazil, by which time Germany should have secured the majority of Africa.  By the time that the USA makes their first 2 unit landing in Africa on USA 3, Germany will have taken everything with the possible exception of UOSA, and they may have lost Algeria and/or Libya (not a definite with no USA ships in SZ12 to help protect the UK fleet).

    So USA then takes turns 4 and 5 to push the Germans back to Egypt (more likely USA 6 if Germany continued to send a few units across the Med).  Germany was still net positive income for 6 consecutive turns in Africa, UK income was significantly reduced during that time, and USA was spending nearly half of their income from Turn 3 forward on Africa units.

    Yes, the US ends up with a fair number of FIGs shuttling through Africa to Moscow, and it is a good thing too because Germany is going to have Moscow under siege by Turn 6 with so much of the Allied war effort tied up in Africa and UK’s income reduced during the critical early turns.

    There simply are cheaper ways for the Allies to re-take Africa that do not jeopardize letting Germany become to powerful on the Eastern Front.



  • Do your normal turn 1 landings in Algeria with UK and US forces.  Start moving your panama destroyer over towards brazil, fly fighter from EUS to land in brazil.

    Turn 1 purchase 1 IC in brazil
    2 Transport in EUS
    1 Tank
    2 Inf

    This way you will have taken algeria, on turn 1
    You can send more reenforcements there turn 2 including air, and will have about 3 transports down there to send your turn 2 brazilian purchases over.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Honestly, the benefit I see in Brazil is that you need half as many transports and they are out of range for the Luftwaffe meaning you are better equipped to send your fleet into the Pacific.

    In a traditional kill Germany first game, Switch may be correct in that it may not be cost effective. (Even in a KJF possibly, since you could have 2 transports bring units from E. USA to Brazil and 2 from Brazil to S. Africa for only a 1 IPC increase in price over the industrial complex option.)



  • The 2x2 TRN option also gives you the option for 33% more ground forces to Africa each turn.

    4 units instead of only 3, and you do it for only 1 IPC more up front; as well as being able to shift to a 4x4 into Algeria, or a 2x2 into Europe if you choose.  No such option with a Brazil IC without spending a lot more cash.



  • A major thing I like about the IC in Brazil is that landing in Algeria the traditional way leaves you pretty open to a counter attack with the German Battleship, and all of the german fighters that could be surrounding the med. To me, this is much safer. Unfortunately my game isn’t for a while, so I won’t be able to tell you how it works for a few weeks. Keep the advice coming. I am not an experienced US player, and I really want to get in the fight fast with them.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    BTW, I should mention you need more than two transports to continually route E. USA units through Brazil.  Brazil is 2 sea zones away from E. USA, not 1.  So there’s a major cost increase in going that route. (2 Transports in SZ 10, 2 Transports in SZ 18 and 2 Transports in SZ 22).

    So you need 6 Transports (48 IPC) or an Industrial Complex and 2 Transports (31 IPC.)

    The 6 transports gives you an extra unit, but is it really worth the extra 17 IPC?



  • @Cmdr:

    BTW, I should mention you need more than two transports to continually route E. USA units through Brazil.  Brazil is 2 sea zones away from E. USA, not 1.  So there’s a major cost increase in going that route. (2 Transports in SZ 10, 2 Transports in SZ 18 and 2 Transports in SZ 22).

    So you need 6 Transports (48 IPC) or an Industrial Complex and 2 Transports (31 IPC.)

    The 6 transports gives you an extra unit, but is it really worth the extra 17 IPC?

    You don’t need 6 transports if you set-up the feed right with ground units.  When you buy 2 transports for EUS, you need to buy units to fill the transports immediately as well as units to move to panama from EUS the next turn.  So you would need 8 units.

    Once these transports move from SZ10 (EUS) to brazil (sz18), then these two transports only need to move to panama and back to load units to move to brazil.

    You do the same thing for a chain of units (shuck-shuck) to algeria as well.

    I do not think you would need that many units being moved to africa (4 transports).


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yea, I guess, if you want to move them down to Panama before shipping them over seas to Brazil then over seas again to Africa



  • NOW you are talking about a USA that is ignoring Japan AND is slow against Germany.

    As the Axis, this would make me happy…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    NOW you are talking about a USA that is ignoring Japan AND is slow against Germany.

    As the Axis, this would make me happy…

    No, we’re talking about an alternate route for the US to keep Africa liberated without having to re-divert it’s fleet away from Europe.  At most Germany will see a reprieve of 30% in purchasing power in one round and a reprieve of 9-11 IPC from America each summary round.  (Note that Germany will also be short about 11 IPC from the loss of all of Africa so that’s pretty much a wash there.)



  • The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

    It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

    But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.



  • @ncscswitch:

    The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

    It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

    But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

    IF Germany has invested money in a Med fleet, then an allied investment in kind to Africa via a Brazilian IC is a good safe play.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

    It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

    But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

    Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

    Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

    However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

    Just the way I see it, though.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

47
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts