http://boardgamegeek.com/ look there
Another look at the SAF IC
-
Result:
England was stomped majorly in this game. Germany was kept to a smoldering fire and Japan never made it past Sinkiang. And Africa remained free for the allies the entire time. (I used the Americans to keep Japan busy and let the Russians keep their armies at bay. Defending is 300% easier then attacking!)
-
@Cmdr:
Result:
England was stomped majorly in this game. Germany was kept to a smoldering fire and Japan never made it past Sinkiang. And Africa remained free for the allies the entire time. (I used the Americans to keep Japan busy and let the Russians keep their armies at bay. Defending is 300% easier then attacking!)
All this happened because of the SA IC? It’s teh new killer strat then
-
replying to some posts from earlier in the thread
UK fighters in WRU cant hit the german BB and TRN in z15, where it should be German round 2, reinforcing EGY or taking TRJ.
When I hit EGy, I hit with 3 ARM 2 INF 1 FTR 1 BOM, and that means there are 2-3 ARM and 1 BOM hitting KEN… you dont even need to clear it out, its fun watching a player having to decide whether to choose an INF or BOM has as a casualty.
and if UK is dropping the FTR in z33, then the UK fleet is vulnerable.
If UK leaves the 59 TRN alone… good for Japan, Russia is gonna be in trouble, and IND might fall first turn.
If UK kills the TRN with the DD, then that leaves the rest of the IO UK fleet consisting of an AC 2 TRN and 1 SS.
if UK wants to drop troops in KEN, they either sacrifice one of those TRN, or they leave 1 AC 1 TRN vulnerable to JAPANS 2 FTR, while the other TRN and SS flee the pacific. -
@Cmdr:
Result:
England was stomped majorly in this game. Germany was kept to a smoldering fire and Japan never made it past Sinkiang. And Africa remained free for the allies the entire time. (I used the Americans to keep Japan busy and let the Russians keep their armies at bay. Defending is 300% easier then attacking!)
All this happened because of the SA IC? It’s teh new killer strat then
No. All this happened in part because of the SA IC. It also happened because of dice, decisions and tactics.
-
combine saf is with UK attack on z14 round 1.
-
It seems to me this strategy, of placing an IC in South Africa and then pulling the British forces from South Asia to bolster Africa, would be answered by a Japanese IC in FIC (French Indo-China). Now the Japanese have an easier time there which may even accommodate more Japanese opportunities into Africa. If so, by countering the Germans, you encourage the Japanese. Does this sound plausible?
-
In many games, Jap place IC in Fic because it’s convenient. Fic’s a good place for IC, with or without IC in SA.
What should Jap do with IC in SA? I wouldn’t do any moves I normally wouldn’t do. Maybe India could be contested later in the game.
In a very long game, 14 rnds or more, Jap would have problems with conquering Afr, which often is a good strat,
if Jap cannot take Moscow, and if not US still stucks to AE-Persia…and I would rather move my US fleet to northern Europe if Afr is secured.
Maybe UK can secure Afr alone with IC in SA? I would really like that if I play allies. -
I agree, Japan normally ends up with Industrials in both FIC and India anyway. The Industrial in S. Africa is at least relatively secure from the enemy for a number of rounds and if it does fall, eventually, it serves no real benefit to the axis. However, just keeping Germany from getting Africa can save the allies a net of hundreds of IPC over the life of the game (I get that by combining the income lost to germany resulting in less units purchased, the increase income to England resulting in more units purchased, the less defenders/attackers hitting the allies and the increase attacker/defenders resisting German aggression.)
-
It could also possibly psychologically prevent the Japanese from moving to Africa early on, because they know if they do that then inf will pop up and prevent it from making Africa a windfall. And if they don’t move towards Africa, then simply don’t build anything and save your money.
-
I think you may have missed my point earlier. If Great Britan pulls back from India to support Africa, then you are giving the Japanese player another 3 IPCs each turn 'cause he will take India with little to no resistence. Instead of swaping with Japan by fighting back-and-forth (India-FIC), you will be swapping back-and-forth (India-Persia) at best. The accumulation of 3 IPCs every turn coupled with their total domination of the IO will easily pay for an IC in FIC and you will likely face two Japanese ICs on mainland Asia instead of only one. Their eventual momentum in Asia from this could give them better chances to partake of some Africa. Am I missing something in all this?
-
Am I missing something in all this?
You missed the fact that India belongs to Jap from J1-J2, or J3 latest. Unless you want to move Russian units to India.
Afr is worth 11 ipc, India is worth 3 ipc :roll:About Jap IC on the mainland, I sometimes had 4!! Usually I see 2 IC, 3 IC is not very unusual, but not very common either.
2 Jap IC is the strat I see in most games. Fic is the TT where most Jap players place the first IC.
Sometimes Manch, and India also. Kwang is not often used for IC. -
Exactly my reasoning. India is just impossible to defend reliably beyond UK1 or 2. Why not just use those defenders to try to hold at least the southern half of Africa and force Germany to split their forces fighting there?
-
Exactly my reasoning. India is just impossible to defend reliably beyond UK1 or 2. Why not just use those defenders to try to hold at least the southern half of Africa and force Germany to split their forces fighting there?
Well then you give Japan a cheap India and if Germany ignore africa (since the allies have invested so much in it: non-combated units, purchased an IC) Russia could be in trouble as a strong quick Axis push is possible.
I think if Russia does well R1, that helps make the SAF IC more desirable.
-
i don’t think it makes USSR in trouble, ya from Japan, but not as much from Germany as they also arn’t geting the IPC’s from Affrica (or atleast not as many) meaning they have less ground troops for Europe to buy each turn. also it gives the UK more ground troops to ship to USSR to hold out, or push into Norway that much sooner and hold it.
this also allows the US to not go for affrica and accually fight for it so they can start shiping men to UK/affrica to make there big Europe push OR allows them to put more pressure on Japan earlier.
if Germany sees this and says “it’s a waist of my resources” then it frees up Japan but also frees up UK and US, well both USSR and Germany both suffer about the same (Germany less troops each turn/ USSR gets hit by Japan sooner/harder).
if Germany sees the factory and shots for it, then less troops to fight USSR, and the UK can hold the German advance for long enough for US to get there. so again good for the Allies (only not AS good as if Germany dosn’t go for it).
i think this factory is a good stratagy for the UK as it adds much to the Allies, and only hurts Germany with the posibility of hurting Japan. -
Just b/c UK may pull out of Ind on Rd 1, does not necessarily mean they give it to Japan.
UK can counter Ind with 1 inf + bom for 2-3 turns, assuming Japan is only going in with max of 2 inf, which is probably a safe assumption in this case since the have to take China in rd 1 and the UK still has a solid IO presence. The UK can also shuttle troops from Ken back to Per or Ind since they should have their AC, dd, and trn (or trns) around.
If Japan does sink them that helps the US in their Pac build up.
Outside of the Safr IC, I find pulling out of Ind and the continued threat by UK troops in Per a pretty good deterent against Japan for quite a few turns which is why I don’t like to counter Egy all that often.
-
Trying to hold India is usually a losing propositon. Better to pull the forces out and redploy to Africa.
-
That depends on your long term objectives.
If the Allies can trade India for 2-3 turns, it can be a very positive move for the Allies in a SJF game, especially if combined with an early Allied move into Africa (both North and South). And though i have never played using it, with a UOSA IC placed immediately, combined with moves such as a UK Fleet Consolidation in SZ30, trading India for several turns, UK and USA into Algeria and then central Africa, and solid moves w/o dice fracks by Russia… It can result in the Axis never gaining the economic boost they need to combat the Allies effectively.
-
:roll:
I have considered the SA IC and rejected it long ago. Even with a good R1 the innitial investment of 15 IPC is one that demands near future builds, most likely 2 tanks, (10 more IPC )! That is 25 IPC that will not be getting to aid Russia, ever! Germany can easily reinforce Egypt for a couple of turns before it either loses its’ Med fleet or successfully defends the attacks from the south. All the time drawing off more UK funds that should be helping Russia. As the Axis player I am grateful for all this nonsense. I will push my large Infantry buys towards Russia without fear of my flanks being threatened from the British. And my Nippon navy will be steaming full force for SA on J2 with all transports fully loaded. It will be a short delay in Asia, but well worth it.
That’s my 2 rubles worth on this flawed Strat.
C.I. :roll: -
That Japan move leaves some nice openings for the Allies (remember I said a UOSA IC was viable in a SJF game).
Russia will have 6 INF massed in Bury after R1 (typical SJF R1 move). W/o major reinforcement of Asia, Manchuria falls on R2 (+3 to Russia).
Sinkiang will also remain US Controlled, inviting another IC by the Allies on US1 due to the lack of Japan forces in Asia
2 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM are dropped from EUS into Algeria on US1, and a ship or 2 to reinforce the SZ55 fleet.Now, is Japan going to go full tilt toward Africa under those circumstances? Probably not the best move Japan can make at that point.
Again, I am not saying a UOSA IC is an excellent strat, but it is a viable strat, especially if not countered correctly. And your statements above are not the best counter because:
1. It draws Japan away from their main economic expansion areas early and allows Russia to gain income (and more men to counter Germany).
2. It forces Germany to keep sending forces to the African meat grinder ($6 minimum per turn)
3. It allows the US to Island Hop, unless Japan spend more money on fleet (more IPC’s not going into manpower against Russia)And ARM built in UOSA is not completely wasted even if Africa is abandoned by the Axis. 3 turns to get ARM to Caucuses to help the Russians, compared to 2 turns from London via TRNs in SZ4. Not that much of a delay in exchange for keeping Germany down $2 instead of up $10 in Africa.
-
SA IC might be a feasible strat if UK is to sure hold it. If G builds a trans in med, or start with a med trans bid, then G can take the
factory in SA if they want to, and also with some help from Jap perhaps. Then G would probably keep Afr for many rnds,
and US have use 3 rnds just to take it back…
UK should not build IC in SA if G go AE heavy in G1. If UK knows for sure they take back AE, and that the UK pac fleet
can live long enough to reach SA then perhaps.
I can’t say for sure that it’s not gonna work, but again I wonder why I hardly can recall to have seen this strat before.
Suggested Topics
