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.
UK IC in Norway…
-
Yeah I like the UK IC in Norway as a way to build up big invasion forces, but it always depends on German strategy. If Germany isn’t buying any planes then UK doesn’t have to spend much on fleet, so the IC makes sense. However, others prefer an IC in Egypt and I can see its merits. I do think that if UK isn’t spending much on fleet or planes then they should buy 1-2 ICs at some point.
I’ve seen many advocate for American factories in both Scandavian countries–I can see the merits of this though it will negate the Russian NO.
-
If UK has a lot of money, it can be well spent on an IC in Norway and building ground units to send to Russia first, and later towards Germany through eastern Europe.
-
@Subotai:
If UK has a lot of money, it can be well spent on an IC in Norway and building ground units to send to Russia first, and later towards Germany through eastern Europe.
What % of your games does the UK have that high of an income to build a factory right next to it’s capital where the game isn’t pretty much a lock for an Allied victory?
-
Not really worth it if you ask me, because you still need to use transports if you want to get you troops to where the real fighting is being done (unless you want to go all the way around the Baltic, stopping the Russian NO in the process)
-
I would still be in favour of US factories in scandinavia over UK ones anytime. shortening supply lines to 1 seazone instead og having to wait 2-3round to launch an attack with the units you build is just soo much more valuable. So if you get the opportunity to allow the US to build the factory do it, and let UK build a bomber or 2 more instead of IC and extra transporter.
-
@Fighter:
I would still be in favour of US factories in scandinavia over UK ones anytime. shortening supply lines to 1 seazone instead og having to wait 2-3round to launch an attack with the units you build is just soo much more valuable. So if you get the opportunity to allow the US to build the factory do it, and let UK build a bomber or 2 more instead of IC and extra transporter.
I would also be in favor of a US IC in Norway more than a UK one.
-
I usually only buy IC regularly with Japan. I prefer to buy more expensive hardware rather than building IC to spam infantry. But in some (+NO) games UK can trade France, and so they have mucho money to spend on anything they like.
-
@Subotai:
I usually only buy IC regularly with Japan. I prefer to buy more expensive hardware rather than building IC to spam infantry. But in some (+NO) games UK can trade France, and so they have mucho money to spend on anything they like.
If UK can take france then the IC in norway would probably have even less effect and only be icing on the cake. Alternatively if UK is constantly loosing ipc because on a growing japan beast, then the IC would probably still cost so much that you would have trouble filling an extra transporter (5 transporters i minimum 30) and even less 5,5 transporters if you wanna exploit the increased capacity full.
-
Generally speaking, the allies only buy them if they are already winning, and so it becomes a “Win-More” kind of deal, and is not necessary to win in the first place.
-
@Fighter:
@Subotai:
I usually only buy IC regularly with Japan. I prefer to buy more expensive hardware rather than building IC to spam infantry. But in some (+NO) games UK can trade France, and so they have mucho money to spend on anything they like.
If UK can take france then the IC in norway would probably have even less effect and only be icing on the cake. Alternatively if UK is constantly loosing ipc because on a growing japan beast, then the IC would probably still cost so much that you would have trouble filling an extra transporter (5 transporters i minimum 30) and even less 5,5 transporters if you wanna exploit the increased capacity full.
I think he is saying that Germany was allowing him to trade france, and he could not establish a foothold on it.
-
There was one game where I did pretty much everything against the cook book with Germany.
I was trying a “Leningrad assault” strat I came with which involve building 2 German IC in Finland and Norway round 1.
German goals were:
- Take Karelia ( 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 fighters , cruiser/transport( 70% to hold it with 1 unit ))
- Take and Hold Baltic States ( 4 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks )
- Take and Hold East Poland ( 3 inf, 1 art, 4 tanks )
- Hold on Finland ( accomplished round 1 by sinking transport in range )
- Hold on Norway ( accomplished round 1 by sinking transport in range )
- Hold the Russian Front line ( accomplished by leaving 1 infantry in Romania and foregoing Ukraine 5ipc NO )
- Sink UK battleship ( 2 sub, 1 fighter )
- Attempt sinking sea zone 6 destroyer ( 1 sub )
- Take Egypt ( use bomber, transport )
Altought sea zone 2 is a key battle and not 100% sure, the double IC bought can be placed elsewhere if all goes wrong ( very unlikely ). My biggest concern was the Karelia fight itself but it’s fairly safe in low luck scenario. Russia was hard pressed to retake Karelia. In fact, in that peculiar game, Russia was not able to swap it again on round 2.
Germany Turn 2 saw mass german infantry building, 2 tanks and a destroyer in Norway.
The key point was the round 2 where Norway IC was able to resist landing and destroyer in sea zone 3 enabled germany to block access for a UK drop in Finland or Karelia, which resulted in Germany being able to hold it a full turn while UK elected to drop/swap in France. Meaning round 3, at it’s peek IPC income, Germany had access to a 7 unit production in the northern belt.
It’s not a full proof strat, far from it, but it gave me a quick win over Russia on that occasion and lots of option I normally don’t have as Germany. A variant would be to only buy the Norway IC and an AC in baltic sea to keep the transport/cruiser.
-
really interesting aspects on german ic you present here Corbeau Blanc: I’m definetly going to play out some testgames with this approach to test the viability some more. it seems a high risk and high potential approach - do or die, so hoping for the luck of the dice(never play low luck) in the first and vital battles
-
Norway:
Pros:
Kept England, America and Russia out of Norway/Finland for the entire game.
Kept Russia from getting the 10 IPC National Objective for the entire game.
Allowed Germany to put reinforcements directly into Scandinavia and SZ 3 increasing their threat range.Cons:
Germany was hamstrung for the first few rounds of the game. They had to pull back and really defend Norway until it was self-sufficient.
The complex also sucked money from ground units. I had to build an AA Gun and move the German gun to Norway to stop SBR, so the cost was really more than just a complex.
Because I needed the gun in Norway (to deter a British SBR) I had to forgo using the Transport/Cruiser to assist in taking Baltic States making potential losses greater there.
Germany was unable to keep their fleet alive since the British were able to sack it in the Baltic Sea (SZ 5) without the additional carrier/fighters to protect it. (I like Carrier, Destroyer build in round 1, but with the IC/AA build I couldn’t afford the Carrier/Destroyer.) -
now that we are on the topic of a german ic, what would people say to the concept if a poland ic was combined with an AC ?
to me i would seem a more safe alternative to one or two in scandinavia and tanks from poland can still reach karelia in 1 round and potential increased factory production can be exploited fully compared to finland.
-
If one wants to go building a German cv on turn 1, one might as well build a French IC to help out the naval build.
-
If one wants to go building a German cv on turn 1, one might as well build a French IC to help out the naval build.
well i wouldn’t be an all out naval build as this would soften things up to much for the russians and the complex in france would make germany to vulnurable to SBR IMO. the IC pointed towards russia would sort of be a way to balance that effort
-
If one wants to go building a German cv on turn 1, one might as well build a French IC to help out the naval build.
well i wouldn’t be an all out naval build as this would soften things up to much for the russians and the complex in france would make germany to vulnurable to SBR IMO. the IC pointed towards russia would sort of be a way to balance that effort
-
I think the only place in '41 for a UK IC is in SA. Maybe one in Egypt if it survives T1, but it’s pretty universal now that everyone takes it T1 for obvious reasons. I’ve heard the case for one in Australia, but I don’t like that one either. It’s too easy for Japan to take out. On J2 it can easily be taken and for sure on J3. So if you’re going to you’d almost have to wait until B4 to have any hope of defending it. I know if I saw a B1 or B2 buy of an IC in Australia I would gun for it hard with Japan.
The Norway IC I just don’t see working because the Brits don’t really need the extra three unit build, plus for the same SBR reason that a France IC for germany isn’t the best idea.
I guess there could be some games where the US having an IC there could help, but on the whole I think that’s just not a great spot for one.
Suggested Topics
