Island hopping is great, but its not critical. Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great. This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers. They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults. I will have no less than 2. I then will support my fleet with destroyers. I try to build 2 for every carrier. If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment. This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically. Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower. Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines. If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics. Your maximizing your money and strength. Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry. You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault. the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition. But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up. Battle should be over without losing anything. Your fighters land for fleet defense. Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea. Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.
Brazil IC in Non-Mediterranian US strat
-
I say NO to Brazilian IC in general. Not always, of course - you know how I always say that everything has to be adapted to the situation, and I can see that in some cases you may want a Brazilian IC. But in general - no.
Why do I say generally no?
The focus of the Axis attention is usually Moscow. When Moscow is the focus, the Allies need to either reinforce Moscow or attack one of the Axis powers to the extent that there’s a real threat. A Brazil IC is too far away from the action to reinforce Moscow or add momentum to an attack on either Germany or Japan.
Sure, a Brazil IC lets you have the ability to produce invasion forces on an instant. But you have to blow 15 IPC on it to set it up, then you blow on the order of 8-14 IPC or so every time you use it, and that’s when you’re just setting up either an Atlantic or Pacific fleet. Even later in the game, when most of the shucks are set up, I think I would typically want those IPCs for air units.
There are times when a Brazil IC may become important, I would think later in the game (turn 6+ or so) when/if Japan has set up shop in India and is dropping units into Africa. But I think it’s situational; it isn’t something you shoot for from the start.
If I want to keep Africa with Allies early, I’ll either push infantry by dropping early to Algeria, moving to Libya then Anglo-Egypt then Trans-Jordan, but that often sees the Allies running into a Japanese wall at Persia. Alternatively, I can produce tanks with US on US1, land in Africa US2, and race through Africa US3+ with light infantry backup following; US4+ sees the Allied fleet in the Atlantic moving north to set up the E. Canada-UK-Europe shuck.
Of course your post was probably about the second reclamation of Africa (Germany takes, Allies reclaim, Japan takes, Allies reclaim a second time). But at that point, unless I’m facing a big bomber squadron, I’ll typically have attained my goal of reinforcing Moscow and/or threatening one of the Axis powers. NOT ALWAYS, of course, and as I mentioned, I may see a use for a Brazil IC in some specific situations, but again - it’s situational, not something I’d gun for from the beginning.
-
I agree. What the US should do instead is build an IC in Alaska (assuming that the Chinese territories are virtually not a viable option for the US to build an IC), and produce naval units to threaten Japan, which would divert resources from a JTDTM (Japanese tank drive to Moscow). Any thoughts?
-
I agree. What the US should do instead is build an IC in Alaska (assuming that the Chinese territories are virtually not a viable option for the US to build an IC), and produce naval units to threaten Japan, which would divert resources from a JTDTM (Japanese tank drive to Moscow). Any thoughts?
I have try these once. It was a disaster. But … I will try it again. :-)
What I learned so far:
-
the axis player now know that US is going pacific
-
Alaska may be vulnerable to a japanese amphibious attack
-
the IC should (must?) build at the first turn
-
Japan can attack sz 63 with all air force if holds SFE which means a lot of pressure to the US fleet as you can’t (temporarily) retreat your fleet to sz 64 or 55 until you have enough land forces to hold ALA against four fully loaded japanese transporters with BB support and minimum four FIG
-
it seems tricky to start an island hopping from there; a BB strategy seems more reasonable, but it may takes more time that the russian player may have
And I think the allies can be in trouble if Germany decide to go to africa and into the atlantic: The Uk may run short of IPC quickly and may not have the ability to push the germans back, but for that I’m not sure.
But perhaps we should discuss that in another thread, it sound a little bit off topic …
-
-
I am currently exploring a tactic of the American IC in Brazil on Round 1 with a different attack strategy. So far, it’s been somewhat successful, but it’s almost impossible to pull off with an overly aggressive Germany (where they are routinely placing 12-15 IPC in the front lines against Russia)
-
Define “somewhat successful”. :-P
-
It worked once. It did not work the second time.
The difference was how Germany played from Germany 1. In both games I put my plan out and no matter what happened, I followed the plan to the letter. (Okay, I deviated when it was physically impossible to make attacks or NCMs due to lack of units, but no other deviations. I don’t care if a bomber was left sunning itself on the beach with nary a soldier to defend it in site. If that territory was not scheduled to be attacked, I did not attack it.)
The main difference came in one Germany putting 9-12 infantry on the front lines vs 3-5 infantry with the other Germany. This necessitated a complete shift of attack strategies with Russia which cascaded in the favor of the Axis.
When Germany was played more traditionally, in my opinion, attacking territories with 2 infantry, fighter to clear out one defender, Russia was more able to hold the front until England arrived.
It should be pointed out that it was game over on Germany 4, which is generally faster than England or America can do any serious good in helping Russia defend even in a very traditional game. Leading me to believe that a German tank dash is > most allied strategies regardless of what they are.
-
If Germany invests in Africa (or even a baltic navy), a Brazilian IC is a decent move.
If Germany buys loads of inf G1… the allies will need to put more pressure on the european theatre first, either for support through Karelia/Arch or taking western and forcing German units back. You can expect some German tanks to follow those inf buys.
-
Ah, didn’t realize you had tried it in another game too. That makes more sense now.
Yeah, round 3 or 4 is the earliest the USA can have any real pressure in Europe…I don’t think a German tank dash is unstoppable in general, but slow-building Allied strategies must be used with care, as sometimes you have to go lickety-split to keep up.
-
I don’t really consider the strat I was employing as “slow” so much as “medium.” In other words, it was not a transport dash to shovel men into the meat grinder in E. Europe, but it wasn’t a battleship/submarine strategy either. It was retaking Africa and building fleet at a moderate pace. At least that’s the idea.
Obviously it has yet to be completely ironed out after a mere two games!
-
I think a US IC in Brazil would only treat the “symptoms” Germany posses on the world not the “illness.” Africa is a secondary objective.
Not only that now you are tying up the US players attention to a side skirmish not the main fight. You wouldn’t have the US player attack both Japan and Germany why would you devide the US efforts here?
Sorry to sound so negitive, I just don’t think its a good idea.
LT
-
LT,
The thing is, Brazil is close enough to the Pacific that you have a decent staging area for your naval attack if you move in for a KJF game. Spend 3 rounds securing Africa and on USA 4, go full bore into the Pacific with a fleet buy in SZ 55 + the ships coming into SZ 42 from SZ 22.
At least, that’s the idea.
-
@Cmdr:
LT,
The thing is, Brazil is close enough to the Pacific that you have a decent staging area for your naval attack if you move in for a KJF game. Spend 3 rounds securing Africa and on USA 4, go full bore into the Pacific with a fleet buy in SZ 55 + the ships coming into SZ 42 from SZ 22.
At least, that’s the idea.
Ok as a SGF (Stall Germany First) plan I’d bite to see if it works. I’ll try it next time I’m the allies to get a feel for it.
LT
-
The plan that worked for me was:
Industrial in Brazil USA 1
- 2 Infantry, Artillery, AA Gun to Brazil
Set up a shuck to Brazil from E. USA (1 transport in SZ 10 and 1 in SZ 18 is fine, you only need 1 more dude to fill 2 transports worth from SZ 22 into Africa anyway.)
Build fleet in SZ 10 and move them down to SZ 22
Buy USA 4 you should have 38 IPC which could be 3 Submarines, Destroyer (the Destroyer prevents Japan from attacking the new submarines for free) meanwhile the rest of your fleet (42+40+38-15-ground units worth) should be swinging down into SZ 42 ready to liberate Australia if needed or to unite iwth the SZ 55 fleet.
Note, it takes 3 turns to get the Transport/Battleship from SZ 55 to SZ 22 anyway, so this really is no faster/slower than America would move.
Honestly, though, I’m liking the extra transport and just shuttling down to Brazil and over instead of the complex and moving over. 8 IPC for the transport is < than 15 IPC for the complex. And the extra transport can still be used after Africa is secure and Germany is toothless in the Atlantic.
-
I want to try this out. I like the idea of being only 2 spaces aways from Western Europe.
-
I don’t see the appeal of a Brazil IC when the USA already has a 12 ipc factory in Eastern USA. I’d rather buy another transport and 2 pieces of gear and ship them directly into Africa.
A Brazil IC isn’t useless but it doesn’t seem very efficient.
-
The factory is more efficient than buying 2 trns (to ship 2 units from EUS to Bra every turn), because it’s cheaper and you can send an extra unit (3 instead of 2). The only downside is that it is slightly less flexible than the transports, though you can still reach WE in one turn from sz 18, which should give the Germans a bit more pause in Europe.
-
I’d say the problems with a Brazil factory are similar to the problems with a South Africa buy. If I’m in a multi and UK builds in South Africa, I’ll ask them why, and they’ll say to secure Africa. Well, it’s true a factory in SA will make it hard for Germany to take Africa. But of course there are better ways to accomplish this that don’t involve buying a 15 ipc factory far far away from the front.
It’s pretty much the same thing with Brazil. It does help secure Africa and/or get men to Western faster. But there are better ways to accomplish these objectives.
-
I want to try this out. I like the idea of being only 2 spaces aways from Western Europe.
Keep in mind that 2 spaces is a good attack run distance for German FTR’s to hit and run back to W Europe.
-
I don’t see the appeal of a Brazil IC when the USA already has a 12 ipc factory in Eastern USA. I’d rather buy another transport and 2 pieces of gear and ship them directly into Africa.
A Brazil IC isn’t useless but it doesn’t seem very efficient.
I agree. Unless you plan on deploying a massive amount of troops in Africa, I think the IPCs could be better spent elsewhere.
-
@LT04:
I want to try this out. I like the idea of being only 2 spaces aways from Western Europe.
Keep in mind that 2 spaces is a good attack run distance for German FTR’s to hit and run back to W Europe.
German fighters are more valuable to them than US capitol ships are to the us. Rd 1 I’d build an AC. By round 2 I’d have 2 dd’s, a loaded AC and some trans.
Suggested Topics
