They the key is having both sides of the map going at same time. This is no way any knock towards any guys games and such.
I know some have time limits to play a country but if you have battle boards on each end of map plus cut back on strategy talking when both players are discussing 1 country which is fine to a certain point then say Germany plays while Japan plays and other side is defending same time.
German Industrial Complexes
-
I can’t see how the Norway IC is better than the Poland IC.
The Poland IC is automatically defended by infantry from Germany moving toward Russia and, as was said before, is one move closer to Russia.
The Norway IC is isolated and, considering the typical naval buildup by the UK, it must be defended by a significant number of units that are in no way a threat to anyone unless Russia or UK aren’t trading Finland and there are armor in Norway.
For the Axis, you want to be able to pile up your builds, not choose to isolate them. The Egypt IC is an exception because it can be supported by the Italians, which is why I have decided that it is best for the UK to counterattack Egypt if there is one German armor left and even sometimes when there are 2 armor. Lose the UK bomber to make sure you take it, too. Italy can retake Egypt and build an IC if it wants, just as long as Germany can’t. That move carries other benefits but that is for another thread.
-
It’s better in the fact that it helps you hold Finland and Norway which is +5 IPC to you a round and -15 IPC to the Allies a round (5 IPC for the territories +10 IPC to Russia for the NO if they can get Poland/Bulgaria as well…which, they probably will if you lose Finland and Norway!)
-
@Cmdr:
It’s better in the fact that it helps you hold Finland and Norway which is +5 IPC to you a round and -15 IPC to the Allies a round (5 IPC for the territories +10 IPC to Russia for the NO if they can get Poland/Bulgaria as well…which, they probably will if you lose Finland and Norway!)
Seems like a lot of effort just to hold on to 3 IPC’s and trade 2 IPC’s. And, as Russia, I never count on the big money NO until Germany starts collapsing. Never in the early game.
Plus, with both Russia and the UK able to trade Finland with you, your need to adequately defend Norway from UK landings, and your ability to only build 3 units per turn, it means that the balance for Germany could get upside down pretty quick unless you are flying aircraft over for defense and then you’re probably going to be forced to trade France which defeats the purpose of the income benefits of holding Norway.
-
Yeah, I’m not sure about a Nor IC.
You can pretty much accomplish the same thing from Kar, and here you didn’t need to buy an IC and you can still pressure and move on Mos when the time is right and trade Fin if you really want to.
You would have to defend Nor from potentially all three Allies. I would think the US goes to Atlantic if they see an IC in NOR. It is going to end up in UK or US hands. I’d expect a heavy UK crusier navy as well. Free bombardment.
Also in Pol (in mainland Europe IC) at least Ita can help with a toke defense as well. They should always have a few inf/rt/arm around.Edit:
Also you’ll have to buy an AA or both UK/US will combine to bom it for 6 every turn.
-
Just when I thought you were out of great ideas, you come up with another! well done Jen!
A Norway complex sounded far fetched at first but after reading your argument and thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense. I think I still prefer a France IC however I will have to try the Norway idea sometime as it will give me the element of suprise in my games and I think it can work really well! -
Just when I thought you were out of great ideas, you come up with another! well done Jen!
A Norway complex sounded far fetched at first but after reading your argument and thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense. I think I still prefer a France IC however I will have to try the Norway idea sometime as it will give me the element of suprise in my games and I think it can work really well!:? Really. Darth and I just made 3 posts illustrating why the Norway IC is a bad idea and they just went straight past you. Well, I guess when you compare me and a cartoon witch in lingerie, everything I say probably sounds like “blah blah blah”.
P.S.- That’s not really her in the picture. The Commander’s hair is brown. :wink:
-
:? Really. Darth and I just made 3 posts illustrating why the Norway IC is a bad idea and they just went straight past you. Well, I guess when you compare me and a cartoon witch in lingerie, everything I say probably sounds like “blah blah blah”.
P.S.- That’s not really her in the picture. The Commander’s hair is brown. :wink:
Her avatar wins but your arguments are sound. I would like to try it in a game just to see how it would make the Allies react.
-
LMAO I like that response 505 it was a funny!
I’m not sure if the idea will 100% work, but I would like to try it as I think it may have potential! -
I have tried the norway IC several times. it is nice to be able to put 3 units there every turn. once i went with planes and UK had a hard time keeping boats in the water. But EVERY time, US and UK bombed the hell out of it, and the US just LOVES to take that IC away from Ger. if US keeps that IC, its bad news for GER. i hope you have better luck with it than i did.
-
I’m liking France. Sure, you don’t necessarily need 16 units a turn. But all ICs cost the same, and France is the most important territory besides Germany for Germany to hold. If I can plop down units there at the end of every turn, so much the better. Unlike Norway, it’s not likely to help the Allies–ie if the Allies take and hold France the game is probably about over for Axis anyway.
That said I’m not convinced Germany should always buy an IC.
-
France is good for a suprise navel drop as well. Norway, i don’t see how it can be held. My typical UK1 build is 1 AC, 3 trannies, 1 inf 1 arm. Your not gonna stop all 8 units i can drop plus my air on turn 2, plus the US’s trannie and huge air power.
Worst case I get a cruiser instead of the last trannie, that still gives me alot of firepower though. That build would just scream KGF to me.
-
I don’t think buying any IC for Germany makes sense, unless it’s in Egypt and you can hold it.
-
KArelia is basically a German IC on G2-G3. However, Karelia can’t produce enough. That’s why I like Poland. Germany needs infantry in the front. Walking infantry from Germany takes too much time
Robert
-
Agreed but by the time Germany builds a IC in Poland(Turn 1), builds Inf(Turn 2) and moves them, you could have just built Inf in Germany and moved them to E. Poland, Baltic States or Ukraine. Then, the IC in Poland is useless and you just wasted 15 IPC’s.
-
Latley, just for kicks I have done a French IC, which seems to be viable if one wantsto try a turtle w/ Germany. You probably won’t be buying anything other than inf and MAYBE an odd sub if you want to get crazy but it seems like an idea with some potential.
-
I think it all depends on what the US does. If they go for KGF, then I don’t like the IC in France. If they don’t, then maybe. I haven’t seen a good place to put a German IC that makes sense. Why put a German IC in France or Poland, when Germany is only 1 hex away? Why waste the 15 IPC’s and wait a turn to build? In my opinion, Germany has to take out Russia as quick as possible for the Axis to have a chance to win. They have to squeeze Russia along with Japan.
-
I think it all depends on what the US does. If they go for KGF, then I don’t like the IC in France. If they don’t, then maybe. I haven’t seen a good place to put a German IC that makes sense. Why put a German IC in France or Poland, when Germany is only 1 hex away? Why waste the 15 IPC’s and wait a turn to build? In my opinion, Germany has to take out Russia as quick as possible for the Axis to have a chance to win. They have to squeeze Russia along with Japan.
For the most part I agree with you. I honestly don’t think a France IC (or any for that matter) is optimal, as far as I can see, but it can be viable.
The point of the French IC though is to do a turtle. Germany will be building 16 inf per turn (at least thats the goal), other than maybe building 1 AA and MAYBE the odd sub or artillary here or there. What this does is provide a great supply line, a well fortified Germany, as well as freeing up fighters for the Eastern Front, as France willbe able to defend and send inf towards russia (at least for a little bit). Remember without an IC Germany is only ltd to 10 units, this can maximize Germany’s production in a fairly safe way. Like I said, as of now I don’t think it is optimal, but it can yeild interesting results and is fun to try for a few games.
-
I like to build a German IC in Romania. It helps send unit for the southern area of the eastern front faster and allow Germany to produce 14 units a turn (with the capture of the Karelian IC)!
-
I can’t see how the Norway IC is better than the Poland IC.
The Poland IC is automatically defended by infantry from Germany moving toward Russia and, as was said before, is one move closer to Russia.
The Norway IC is isolated and, considering the typical naval buildup by the UK, it must be defended by a significant number of units that are in no way a threat to anyone unless Russia or UK aren’t trading Finland and there are armor in Norway.
For the Axis, you want to be able to pile up your builds, not choose to isolate them. The Egypt IC is an exception because it can be supported by the Italians, which is why I have decided that it is best for the UK to counterattack Egypt if there is one German armor left and even sometimes when there are 2 armor. Lose the UK bomber to make sure you take it, too. Italy can retake Egypt and build an IC if it wants, just as long as Germany can’t. That move carries other benefits but that is for another thread.
The big problem with the poland IC is that it splits the defense of germany. Now Germany has to defend both poland and Germany. Any player would defend germany and that makes a huge gap in the supply lines to the Russian front. By turn 2 the Germans are out numbered or at best on par with the soviets. In games where I have used the poland IC Uk drops on Poland and blam not only did you lose an IC but the whole logistics of the russain front goes out the window. I do like norway and will give that a try. I have used Bulgaria. The argument for Norway is sound.
-
I think Poland is an ideal location for a G1 IC:
1. It’s closer to the Eastern Front
2. It’s easily defensible (the bulk of your units will march thru there on their way to Moscow)
3. It’s not an auto target for the Allies (like France is)
4. It’s further from the established US/UK sea lanes and therefore less likely to be attacked
5. It’s “safer” from SBR, as it can only take 6 damage
6. You don’t need 16 production capacity (just buying infantry costs 48 IPCs–by that time you’ll have a SU IC)Further, a good G1 buy would be IC (15), 4xInf (12), Arty (4). That gives you 5 units to start your push East into Poland on G2. Assuming about 45 IPCs for G2, you can then place 3xInf in Pol, and 7xInf and 3xTank in Ger. That means you have 8 ground pounders in Pol on G2 (compared to 10 for the “typical” G1 build of 9xInf, Arty), so you’ve only traded 2 units in the short term for 3 units every turn for the rest of the game.
Also, let’s compare a G2 buy with a Pol IC to one without (and assuming 45 IPCs).
G2 w/ Pol IC: 10xInf, 3xTank
13 units, 19 attack power, 29 defense powerG2 w/o Pol IC: 6xInf, 3xTank, Bmb
10 units (one can’t hold ground), 19 attack power, 21 defense powerA French IC would let you buy 15xInf, but you get 4 less attack power, and only 1 more defense power; plus you will struggle to “max” those production spots, especially once you capture a Russian IC. I’ve ruled out the Nwy IC as too far off the beaten path to be worth it for Germany, and it would be hugely detrimental if the US could capture it (which they could relatively easily.
Just my $0.02…
Suggested Topics
