okay who does this, I want to know. lol.
I still can’t bring myself to drop a minor on iraq with uk, I have to give it to russia lol. I did drop minors in egypt and persia. bought my inf in persia, my mech inf in union. tanks / mech in egypt. I pretty much just choo choo trained my way to russia.
Did the same with usa too from morocco all the way over choo choo train. I also got a few units from quebec over every other round with the 2 transports i got for uk.
I didn’t get the finish the game, because he got mad at this and left. I guess it is kind of lame.
But it is funny, building up naval to protect UK’s water is more expensive compared to getting minor complexes.
You would be better off with a naval base to go along with your IC in Central Persia. Transport shuck back and forth from South Africa. An IC in Egypt is way too vulnerable.
you know I never thought about a transport shuck… could get 4 artillery from south africa.
naval off uk is vulnerable as well… you got to build a fleet or get one from usa, germany starts with like 100 ipc worth of air… 2 minors is only 24 bucks.
also if you want usa to threaten italy or the underbelly as I like to call it, you need another fleet for that…
so I thought f it, just minor it up, because italy didn’t buy naval. So I wasn’t too worried about egypt.
so if I get 1 inf 1 art to shuck persia with the two starting transports I get down there. i buy 1 mech 1 inf 1 art for union. 11, persia 3 inf 9, and 2 tank 1 mech for the 36 I make assuming libya is taken by usa units which shore up on that side first.
THAT IS PERFECT. :D
except i don’t have anything to defend the thransports down there except for that starting destroyer in union the cruiser from india and bship sometimes… but I guess it is enough considering only bombers can hit it.
mmm
I still prefer to just get mech down in union for 12. 3 mech egypt 12. 3 art for 12 in persia like I was doing.
your way packs more much… MM. I had 37 so I got 2 mech 1 tank egypt and 2 inf 1 art persia.
I think your way is better in the long run though.
You might not need much naval defense unless the japs stray way down into the Indian ocean for some reason? If you want to build a naval unit down there, a CRUISER will be your best choice because you can use the Shore Bombardments with every amphibious landing you do in Egypt. If you keep on it, the Italians will never have both transjordan and egypt for a whole turn so their navy never gets through suez.
hmmm, this choo choo business seems to be logical if italy is prepping a homefront defense force. SOUND LEGIT.
Depends on UK’s position and strategy. If UK had its navy sunk round 1 and doesn’t want to get in a naval arms race with Germany a minor there is great assuming you build units in London to keep it safe. It also has the advantage of getting units to India, although if that is something you wish to do a naval base will be required in the middle east. However long term I think money is better spent elsewhere. A naval base and minor is a lot of money not going against germany.
This works really well vs. a G1 Barbarossa. If you go Egypt and build mech/tanks there and in Union, you can press up around Caucasus (denying Germany NO’s) and otherwise screw with Germany/defend Moscow, or even take Stalingrad after Russia falls. That’s a beyatch for Germany to retake especially with a pipeline.
naval base meh. no need. real ground forces seem more legit. 9 units a round without relying on transport or naval guardians. I like this considering 100 tuv in air requires 5 fighters carrier and some dds. screw that.
At some point I like to tpt the inf & AA gun from Malta to Egypt placing the tpt in sz81 (w/cruiser or Egyptian air base to cover it). Then buy a tpt for S Africa so you can always have one tpt coming and one going between the two naval bases. Having another naval base and IC in Persia would be cool (gives you more options), but wouldn’t that be like a magnet for Japan? Persia with an IC & NB would be a pretty big target.
For Japan to take the minors down there that’s kind of a stretch. that’s 4 turns from japan dawg. and you are placing 30 ipc down there worth of ground. and you got air so i don’t know how much japan can put and once he ships out there is no return for that fleet. i don’t know how much japan can risk not having around in the pacific before he gets convoy disrupted to 0 income lol.
If they are down there anyway taking India anyway, they could go the extra mile and get Central Persia, Egypt and South Africa, then sail the fleet into the med to protect Italy. Meanwhile they build infantry in Tokyo. No pacific win, but UK in bad shape and Italy safe from harm.
Japan can try to take africa. good luck with that. it’ll be seen from a mile away.
Yes it will be seen a mile away, but what can the allies really do about it?
@Vance:
Yes it will be seen a mile away, but what can the allies really do about it?
India and Union/Mideast IC can pump out navy/air to stop them or ground to hit the landing force which is nearly irreplacable.
35 income worth of stuff going down is pretty good. 3 complexes 9 units. not bad. considering drops are only 10 a round from uk itself… pumping out 1 less unit a turn with no risk of being sunk. ic can be taken and taken back less risk in my opinion.
plus it takes away from germany air’s triple threat issue. how it threatens 2 naval forces and ruskies. now it is just double threat.
I have done this, with great effect.
We played alpha +3, with some rulechanges;
the russian NO being; “+3 IPC for each land terr in europe”, meaning no NO for iraq, or any african terr, or any islands. So it didn’t make sense for ussr to take iraq.
we also added the rule that if london was lost, UK would lose income the next turn while moving their capitol. (so if UK lost on G3, UK would collect income again on UK4)
we played for 14 VC.
-we bid extra income.
germany got the bid on +8 income each turn for the entire game.
the german threathend sealion with all nav buy on G1
UK 1 we hit italian fleet in 95 and 96 (since he had not flown a german ftr to s Italy) build inf. The battle in 95 went really bad, so egypt dropped on I1.
on g2 he did major IC in romania and Bombers, and started bombing london to dust.
UK started producing mechs in SA and built a MIC in iran, then later in iraq, while pushing back towards egypt with up to 9 produced landunits/ turn.
when egypt fell, UK built a MIC there, so that one could stop producing in SA.
the game was won when med was under control and we where going to land in norway, and threathened everything in europe.
I should mention that Japan decleared on J2 (UK forgot to block the jap fleet from hitting the stack in burma), but UK managed to strafe shan state, so ANZAK could take it and he didn’t have a good enough attack to take india on J3.
Major IC in romania is suboptimal. you could just buy 10 inf round 1 and move it up or better yet since germany has naval, get 2 transports and upgrade what would be infantry into mech/tanks.
sorry I just don’t like suboptimal german play. Especially since they made germany and west germany majors.
axis bid, coupled with russia NO nerf… makes no sense. how he failed to take russia, makes no sense. I blame suboptimal play. -.-
Also changing the VC to 14 changes the dynamics of the game. It is really bad news for axis.
Losing london is not the end of the world. You should win everygame germany takes london (he’ll have a tank and maybe half his air left after).
If germany threatens sea lion, russia threatens artillery/inf in novo/ukraine with mech /tank from russia. The turn london falls is the turn ruskies park romania and collect 61 as you hit the 3 bordering axis spots. you will end up stayin in romania for awhile and when it looks like you got to move… that is usually the same turn uk is back in business. instead of upgrading major IC on uk, he’ll get a minor in egypt or something.
~
also if I see naval buy from germany, I buy 4 bombers USA 1 and put the starting bomber east usa. if Japan DOW round 2. I fly 5 bombers into UK. if Japan does not DOW, I will rest assure that UK pac and ANZAC will have lots of money to stay safe till I can get some pacific play going.
you may find a more enjoyable game without the UK move capital rule and without the bid. 14 vc is fine if coupled with russian NO nerf.
I usually win games where germany buys naval round 1. I generally have up to 10 bombers to chuck at german naval… carrier bb dd cruiser 2 fighter… don’t stand a chance. it comes early enough that it can land safely amongst russians.
Actually, there’s a delay between UK falling and UK getting back–the US fleet will be stuck off Eastern US, and therefore it’s a 2 turn deal.
yeah but russia boost to income is a big deal as well as the UK Pac and ANZAC boosts to income. It pretty much compensates for losing UK. Then there is a positioning ordeal for germany the fact that he invested in transports which need to be guarded so that’s a -70 or -77 sink when it gets blown away.
Plus it pretty much insures russia’s survival well into the late game. Russia matching germany income for awhile is really bad… the only reason russia gets kicked out is because the supply line from russia to romania is far.
So Japan has to make a pacific win happen because you can’t expect a europe win unless russia overstays his welcome in romania for some reason.
as long as usa splits income past round 3. germany can’t kick russia out AND hold UK forever. Italy’s success in africa may not occur, because if Italy isn’t buying ground forces… russia could push towards taking rome… I have done that before.
Sea lion ain’t what it used to be, because now the casualties are so much higher for germany.
@Cow:
axis bid, coupled with russia NO nerf… makes no sense. how he failed to take russia, makes no sense. I blame suboptimal play. -.-
Also changing the VC to 14 changes the dynamics of the game. It is really bad news for axis.
Losing london is not the end of the world. You should win everygame germany takes london (he’ll have a tank and maybe half his air left after).
you may find a more enjoyable game without the UK move capital rule and without the bid. 14 vc is fine if coupled with russian NO nerf.
remember this was alpha +3, not +3.9. we felt that the sealion was to strong, so we gave the move capitol option, and added a bid.
NOs where nerfed because rules as written when we started the game meant that ussr could get NO for eire.
we believed that 14 VC was so bad for the axis that the bid had to be substantial to compare.
anyways, I would prefer for iraq/iran to belong to USSR in 3.9, and maybe build minor IC in egypt, when it is safe. (ie no sealion, dead it fleet). I would maybe chose to take iran with UK, then strafe iraq, and let USSR with 2 mech and 1 tank/ftr finish the job. that way I can get some from both world, altho it might be abit too expecive for ussr.
I think the reason my opponent went for major in rumania was that he thought he would be able to fil it up, bc of the bid.
I do agree that it is not good to make plan based on suboptimal play, but I do think a UK minor in iran will make UK a very potent force in the indian ocean, africa and later the med front. that way USA can focus on carriers DDs and subs for the atlantic, while UK can focus on ftrs for atlantic (1-2 per turn), while the rest can fill the factories in iran and SA with mechs and toys for the med front
