Oops, didn’t realize you were planning on building it US 2. US does not go before Japan.
Australia IC
-
Yeah, it’s possible it’s in West India. It’s near the border, so it could be on either side.
-
The only problem w/building on UK tt when Calcutta is in Jap hands is at some point you may want to liberate India, and your screwed. UK won’t have the $ to spend there, and you would loose the US presents in Asia.
Korea, from what I’ve heard can be a game winner for US if Jap gets caught off guard w/full India press, but building in the same waters as Japan itself sounds kind risky to me (I’ve not seen it). It would have to be in the right circumstances.
I can’t see any reason to build US IC in Mexico, it might be ok for Japan, but that would be really risky too.
A US build on Alaska would get unis a little closer to Japan, but would also paint a bulls eye there for Jap to attack (of coarse that could be a good thing to draw them to US and away from Asia).
FIC seems like it would be good for US to build (minor) but unless you could get UK back on its feet, 3 units/round is not that much.
I think it would be useful to US if it could build a minor IC on Dutch New G just to replace ground troops it may loose in island hopping, or some extra dd’s for the front lines. It could even get a little help from the Anz. It might prove to be tough to hold on to though.
-
@WILD:
The only problem w/building on UK tt when Calcutta is in Jap hands is at some point you may want to liberate India, and your screwed. UK won’t have the $ to spend there, and you would loose the US presents in Asia.
Korea, from what I’ve heard can be a game winner for US if Jap gets caught off guard w/full India press, but building in the same waters as Japan itself sounds kind risky to me (I’ve not seen it). It would have to be in the right circumstances.
I can’t see any reason to build US IC in Mexico, it might be ok for Japan, but that would be really risky too.
A US build on Alaska would get unis a little closer to Japan, but would also paint a bulls eye there for Jap to attack (of coarse that could be a good thing to draw them to US and away from Asia).
FIC seems like it would be good for US to build (minor) but unless you could get UK back on its feet, 3 units/round is not that much.
I think it would be useful to US if it could build a minor IC on Dutch New G just to replace ground troops it may loose in island hopping, or some extra dd’s for the front lines. It could even get a little help from the Anz. It might prove to be tough to hold on to though.
If the US has a factory, I would just take all British tt except India, so the money goes to a power which uses it.
-
@WILD:
The only problem w/building on UK tt when Calcutta is in Jap hands is at some point you may want to liberate India, and your screwed. UK won’t have the $ to spend there, and you would loose the US presents in Asia.
Korea, from what I’ve heard can be a game winner for US if Jap gets caught off guard w/full India press, but building in the same waters as Japan itself sounds kind risky to me (I’ve not seen it). It would have to be in the right circumstances.
I can’t see any reason to build US IC in Mexico, it might be ok for Japan, but that would be really risky too.
A US build on Alaska would get unis a little closer to Japan, but would also paint a bulls eye there for Jap to attack (of coarse that could be a good thing to draw them to US and away from Asia).
FIC seems like it would be good for US to build (minor) but unless you could get UK back on its feet, 3 units/round is not that much.
I think it would be useful to US if it could build a minor IC on Dutch New G just to replace ground troops it may loose in island hopping, or some extra dd’s for the front lines. It could even get a little help from the Anz. It might prove to be tough to hold on to though.
If the US has a factory, I would just take all British tt except India, so the money goes to a power which uses it.
Poor India, anyways US would most likely liberate in a real war, but no your a mean commander Eisenhower, but what would you do with China territories.
-
@Dylan:
Poor India, anyways US would most likely liberate in a real war, but no your a mean commander Eisenhower, but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
-
You can’t build IC’s on islands, Japan being the exception. (Australia a continent)
-
You can’t build IC’s on islands, Japan being the exception. (Australia a continent)
Actually, you can’t build ICs on Japan either, since it already has one!
-
@WILD:
@Dylan:
Poor India, anyways US would most likely liberate in a real war, but no your a mean commander Eisenhower, but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
-
Either that or defend american stacks or recapture its tt
-
@Dylan:
but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
As Calvin said, they would most likely reinforce US OR UK units on Chinese tt. I don’t like to put units on the Asian coast line to often, but I will to cost Jap $ or pester them. Jap can usually bombard the crap out of you on the coast w/min ground units (amphib), along w/its air power to wipe you out. If US has naval superiority off coast of Asia (or can counter the Jap fleet), then hell yea have china take the coast. Maybe Jap will take a gamble and go for it, leaving its self vulnerable.
-
@WILD:
@Dylan:
but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
As Calvin said, they would most likely reinforce US OR UK units on Chinese tt. I don’t like to put units on the Asian coast line to often, but I will to cost Jap $ or pester them. Jap can usually bombard the crap out of you on the coast w/min ground units (amphib), along w/its air power to wipe you out. If US has naval superiority off coast of Asia (or can counter the Jap fleet), then hell yea have china take the coast. Maybe Jap will take a gamble and go for it, leaving its self vulnerable.
But for an industry in Korea, they would need to get through the Japanese navy, which must be now crippled, and they can not parashoot down, so I do not see why not.
-
@Dylan:
@WILD:
@Dylan:
but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
But for an industry in Korea, they would need to get through the Japanese navy, which must be now crippled, and they can not parashoot down, so I do not see why not.
You can’t talk about Chinese and Korea, because the Chinese can’t go to Korea. The only tt China can go in besides tt w/Chines star is Burma & Kwangtung.
A US attempt at Korea is rather risky, even if Jap is going all out on a UK crunch, and doesn’t leave much behind. Jap will also normally cock block you in sz 16 w/dd, so you may not be able to pull it off early in games. Even if you manage to get to Korea (early in games), the Jap air can come back in a turn or so. If they do, or split it up, you may be able to delay India crush, but again Korea is rather risky IMO.
I have had more success moving US though the Aussie conveyor belt. At least you get some support w/Anz, to help def US fleet (save $ and buy Anz carrier). You can 1-2 (sometimes 3 punch w/UK air) the Jap fleet. Keep in mind that allies not only def together, but because of turn order can also more or less attack together now that Jap BB’s and carriers can’t auto fix between allied turns.
-
@Dylan:
@Dylan:
@WILD:
No I was talking about Dutch New Guinea, where either Japan or US in the right circumstances could build a minor IC if it was valued at 2 ipc.
Edit:
Right now the only options the US has to build an IC is Alaska, Mexico (not much help), Korea, and FIC in Pac.Korea? Thats Japanese, they would need to knock out the Japanese navy, then unload and try to hold it from Japanese forces in Asia.
Yes, they would.
Also, the US can build factories in Hong Kong and Singapore if Calcutta is Japanese
True, but I will most likely regret posting this, but why, Calcutta isn
t Indias capital.Like Sydney being more important than Canberra, Calcutta is more important than Delhi
Then why did they put Ottawa in over Toronto or even Montreal?
-
You know that’s a good question. If indeed each province in Canada is represented (as it seems to be by the map posted), Ottawa, (or Toronto) Ontario could be tough for the Euro axis to get. You would have to take Quebec first, or take Ontario via the Hudson bay (depending on the sz’s). If the victory city was Montreal (Quebec) then the axis would be able to come in from different ways because Quebec appears to have multiple sz. I think Ontario is more protected then Quebec, and that VC (Ottawa) will be rather difficult to get compared to a VC in Quebec.
-
@WILD:
You know that’s a good question. If indeed each province in Canada is represented (as it seems to be by the map posted), Ottawa, (or Toronto) Ontario could be tough for the Euro axis to get. You would have to take Quebec first, or take Ontario via the Hudson bay (depending on the sz’s). If the victory city was Montreal (Quebec) then the axis would be able to come in from different ways because Quebec appears to have multiple sz. I think Ontario is more protected then Quebec, and that VC (Ottawa) will be rather difficult to get compared to a VC in Quebec.
I think I’m reading this wrong, but it sounds like your saying Montreal is the city, because it is Ottawa.
-
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
-
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
-
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
If they do they deserve a bitch slap
-
@Dylan:
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
If they do they deserve a b**** slap
Why? Ottawa borders both
-
@Dylan:
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
If they do they deserve a b**** slap
Why? Ottawa borders both
But it’s in Ontario, it’s like if they put all the states in and put it in Maryland!
Suggested Topics
