I guess Sealion isn’t the best idea. Germany would have to do all the work by him/her self.
Going at the US would be better both Japan and Germany could work together and like Jen said who would think that was going to happen.
LT
Some things I've learned
-
-
If you are Britain, NEVER buy an IC to place in India, S. Afr., or any other weird place. It is a waste of money. In India, the Germans and Japanese can crush it easily with a “vice” maneuver. In S. Afr., it is vulnerable to being taken and it doesn’t help you much anyway way down there.
-
If you are Russia, you MUST hold onto Karelia. If you lose Karelia, especially early, you are in big trouble, so if you have a strategy that involves giving up Karelia, rethink it. The reason it is so important is that if you have it then Britain can help you out by landing troops there. Make sure to have 18 inf, 2 arm, and 2 fighters in there by the end of R1 - the Germans cannot take this without miraculous dice rolling, and even then, they would take it but lose almost all their armor, which is almost as devastating to them. Plus, to take it they would have had to use all of their air force, which means they could not sink the British navy. Any way you look at it, it’s a win for the Allies.
-
If you are Britain, you MUST get a navy, so that you can reinforce the Russian front in Karelia. To be extra sure about getting one, save all your money for the first turn. Then in B2, buy a carrier and as many transports as you can. Then, land two USA fighters on the carrier in US2. From then on, its just a constant flow of troops to Finland and then Karelia.
-
-
@Lil’:
- If you are Britain, NEVER buy an IC to place in India, S. Afr., or any other weird place. It is a waste of money. In India, the Germans and Japanese can crush it easily with a “vice” maneuver. In S. Afr., it is vulnerable to being taken and it doesn’t help you much anyway way down there.
Nah, you can build an IC in India as Britain if you play right, I’ve seen it dont to me as Japan and it was quite hard to stop the tide.
-
i think EG is right.
i’ve built the IC in india before and won. It’s important to realize that you are not likely to keep it. You may well lose that 15 ipc’s that you sink into it. At the same time, you may bomb it, and force Jap to buy an AA gun, thereby reaping some of the cost from India.
Why would GB buy an IC in India? Well, consider this:
What would an extra 2-3 turns before the Japanese may advance on Russia be worth? These extra turns is all that’s needed to be shucking GIJoe onto European soil. By this point you’ve diverted Japan enough, plus you’ve forced them to go up against all those nasty little inf that the UK can dump out of there.
Also you might just buy tanks, clear out of Africa, and advance on Japan as UK with an IND IC. Sure, Germany may run amuck in Africa for an extra turn or two, but the US will certainly get it back. Again, you’ve given Russia some breathing room (and this time you’ve kept Japan’s income down for a few rounds - plus if it starts getting ugly, you might move those armor back to Russia and with the guys you’ve been landing on Karelia (b/c Russia can afford to keep it by pouring more troops there while Germany is in Africa and Japan is getting tanks up its ass, right?)
just some thoughts.
This doesn’t mean ANYTHING Wild2000 :wink: -
My strategy is somewhat different, but yours works too.
-
Well as a matter preference, I don’t like to build an IC in India. IMHO, it slows me down too much in rebuilding my HMS Atlantic Fleet. 15 IPCs, alone is almost well worth the price of a carrier. The threat of Axis to an India IC will not come from Germany (they will be busy trying to Africa), but from Japan. And when Japan does take it - you actually speed the Japanese advance by 1-2 turns. They no longer have to wait a turn to build an IC or spend 15 IPCs investing in one. Of course, I’ve seen TM build an IC there a number of times when she isn’t using a Build All Bombers strat, and she does manage to hold India in front of my vicious Banzi Charges. :x
) If you are Russia, you MUST hold onto Karelia. If you lose Karelia, especially early, you are in big trouble, so if you have a strategy that involves giving up Karelia, rethink it. The reason it is so important is that if you have it then Britain can help you out by landing troops there. Make sure to have 18 inf, 2 arm, and 2 fighters in there by the end of R1 - the Germans cannot take this without miraculous dice rolling, and even then, they would take it but lose almost all their armor, which is almost as devastating to them. Plus, to take it they would have had to use all of their air force, which means they could not sink the British navy. Any way you look at it, it’s a win for the Allies.
Not necessarily always. Even against experienced players I have left Karelia stacked with nothing but inf, pulling my ftrs and arm (along with a good inf reserve) back to Norway or Russia (the arm feint in Norway works particularly well). Once the Germans do take it, they fall into a trap. Usually most of their inf was lost in the previous battle leaving their panzers horribly unprotected. For three turns (UK, USA, Russia), I hit Karelia with everything, destroying Germany’s last arm and their chances of winning.
-
I agree with all 3 of these in general, although there are some inaccuracies in your reasoning.
1.) If you as the Allies have somehow allowed Germany to get close to India, you have big problems! There is really no threat of a vice, but Japan can overwhelm India on it’s own easily enough. I think a factory in India is a good choice, but not the best one - an early UK pipeline to Russia is more effective. I would rather delay Japan permenantly than and extra 2-3 turns. ;)
2.) I agree 100%. If you create a UK and US pipeline as early as possible, Karelia will never even be in serious danger.
3.) You can buy an AC and transport on UK1, especially if you plan for it by submerging the Russian sub on the G1 attack and have the US and/or Canadian transport around for fodder.
-
also you can funnal supplys to russia from the india IC, tru persia,sanking or afganistan with out all the transport stuff
-
Usually it’s easier and a whole lot quicker just to take the Convoy to Archangel.
-
also you can funnal supplys to russia from the india IC, tru persia,sanking or afganistan with out all the transport stuff
You won’t be able to funnel anything to Russia - you’ll be barely hanging on against a growing Japanese force in Burma!
-
An Indian IC is only useful in conjunction with an American one in Sinkang. If I know I am seriously outmatched, I will usually go that route as the Allies.
Karelia is a double edged sword for the Germans. Be too ambious when you take it, and you lose everything. Lose your tank army, and you’ve lost the game, unless Japan has some serious force built up.
Britain’s main goal in my opinion is support. They protect American Transports, Hold Africa, and Supply fighters to Karelia/Moscow.
-
also you can funnal supplys to russia from the india IC, tru persia,sanking or afganistan with out all the transport stuff
But you can’t funnel enough this way. IC in India can “funnel” maybe 2 units per turn, but it really can’t because you need to keep everything you can in India just to hold off the Japanese. With the Karelia pipeline, I can put 6 BR inf and 10 US inf into Karelia PER TURN. No brainer.
-
I agree with all 3 of these in general, although there are some inaccuracies in your reasoning.
1.) If you as the Allies have somehow allowed Germany to get close to India, you have big problems!.
But is it really so farfetched? All Germany has to do is take Caucasus, and they are a blitz away from hitting India.
Mind you, I am assuming that Germany has taken Karelia as well, which becomes a lot more likely if Britain builds an IC in India, because that means they have not attempted a navy yet. If Britain spends its money on an Indian IC, then they are not going to build a navy on that turn, allowing Germany to use its air force to hit Karelia and take it with force.
-
Hahahaha, Germany taking Caucasus? Looks like the Allies weren’t doing their job right. :roll:
Besides, no German wants to split his invading force between Caucasus and Karelia.
-
@TG:
Hahahaha, Germany taking Caucasus? Looks like the Allies weren’t doing their job right. :roll: .
Well my reasoning here is that Russia has put everything into Karelia, and left one token inf in Caucasus. That is how I would play Russia - what are your suggestions? Is this a weak strategy?
@TG:
Besides, no German wants to split his invading force between Caucasus and Karelia.
What I had in mind was a situation where Russia had stacked Karelia, left one token man in Caucasus, and Germany had taken Karelia using everything it had (it could use all its air force because UK had not bought a navy). Then, Germany takes Caucasus with maybe a few extra inf to spare - Russia can’t afford to invest the men needed to take it back.
With Caucasus in Germany’s hands, it can afford to hold off on a Russian invasion. While steadily building up Karelia for an assault on Russia, it can funnel a few ARM per turn down through Caucasus to Syria-Iraq. Again, Russia can’t touch these guys. After the Syria-Iraq ARM force gets built up to a decent size, it can really threaten India and its IC. The double beauty of this is, that you might even get the British to syphen a few fighters off from Russia to shore up India, weakening Russia even more! Either way though, the India IC is toast because it’s now being hit from two sides.
So: the basic point I am making is that when you say “the Allies must not have done their job” I agree, and I think that buying an IC in India is part of “not doing their job.” Britain wastes its money buying, and then keeping alive, this IC, which prevents it from helping Russia.
What do you think?
-
By the way, the above two replies by “Guest” were me - I forgot to name myself.
-
@Lil’:
also you can funnal supplys to russia from the india IC, tru persia,sanking or afganistan with out all the transport stuff
But you can’t funnel enough this way. IC in India can “funnel” maybe 2 units per turn, but it really can’t because you need to keep everything you can in India just to hold off the Japanese. With the Karelia pipeline, I can put 6 BR inf and 10 US inf into Karelia PER TURN. No brainer.
not that it matters but you can funnal 3 units per turn from india
-
Well my reasoning here is that Russia has put everything into Karelia, and left one token inf in Caucasus. That is how I would play Russia - what are your suggestions? Is this a weak strategy?
This is where strafing comes in handy for the Russians. Remember, they can afford to trade causalities, the Germans can’t. At any point, I would retreat my forces Ukraine to Eastern Europe.
So: the basic point I am making is that when you say “the Allies must not have done their job” I agree, and I think that buying an IC in India is part of “not doing their job.” Britain wastes its money buying, and then keeping alive, this IC, which prevents it from helping Russia.
You’re right about that. If Germany took Karelia, I would be wondering where USA or UK would be. Instead of an IC in India, I would take land at Finland Norway, counterattack Karelia, or land at WE, forcing the Germans back.
-
Maybe it’s just me, but in every single game I’ve played, Karelia is never taken by the Germans. Why? They never have the infantry to match Russia. They know they can take but not hold Karelia. And if you do it right, it’s my opinion that an IPC in India can work, even if the Japanese take it after you build it, you can usually take it back. I’ve built it as early as B1 and seen my Japanese opponent send all he had at it only to lose it to an American counter attack, and I’m not talking about 2 inf. and 1 fighter attacking whatever the japanese have left there. Unless the German player is hyper aggressive and gets lucky on some rolls, you can have 3 infantry and 1 fighter in there as britain at the end of your round 1 turn. Your transport makes sure that a fighter has to be diverted in order to bring over the 2 infantry from the phillipines, so Japan attacks 3 inf. and 1 fght with 4 inf., 1 fght and 1 bomber, I’m sure it might not even be that much (-1 fighter). Usually Japan is left with 1 infantry there, sometimes they don’t win at all, and if you move the British fighters into Moscow they are within range to help out as well. If they fail to take it, then the r2 attack into Manchuria will go well, and if they took out china like my opponent usually does, Japan is usually pretty weak there, if not then India is all that much stronger. Arbitrarily dismissing an India IPC is probably not a good idea, it still takes a lot of resources for Japan to get at it, and like I said Karelia isn’t usually in any danger from German attack. I don’t know that’s the way it’s always worked for me in my games, although I’m relatively new to online gaming I play all the time here with my friends.
-
I tend to agree that an Indian IC by the UK doesn’t delay japan for long enough, and in fact speeds up japan quickly after they inevitably take it.
I’ll give you a scenario that I’ve faced in past games:
UK1: UK retreats 1 inf. from persia to india using the transport, leaving 3 inf., 2 fighters (assuming 1 russian fighter is moved into it)
J1: Japan attacks china, killing the US fighter and infantry, tranports all available infantry to kwangtung, lands fighters there, and builds a factory in it.
UK2: Builds 3 inf. leaving 6 inf, 2 fighters
J2: Builds 3 armor, leaving about 7 inf, 3 arm, 3 fighters.
UK3: Builds 3 inf, leaving 9 inf, 2 fighters
J3: Builds 3 armor, moves inf. into French into china, leaving 6 arm, 3 fighters in Kwangtung
UK4: Builds 3 inf, leaving 12 inf 2 fighters
J4: Japan attacks Kwangtung with 8 inf (7 from kwang, 1 from french-indo china) 6 arm, 3 fighters. Japan takes india with about, say, 3 armor.
In my opinion, this delay of japan is not significant enough to warrant an Indian IC. And keep in mind, the 3 tanks/turn is only about half of the Japanese income. During this time it is likely ferrying in troops from Japan,
and making deep advances into asia and russia, possibly building a factory in manchuria to speed it up. Japan has really been delayed only slightly, as
only two turns worth of armor have been diverted to capturing india.UK could also opt to build tanks every turn, however, they would be easily counter attacked by the japanese forces in kwangtung, weaking the defense of india and forcing UK to spend more money every turn.
-
On the other hand, I believe a South african IC can work rather well:
Ger1: Invade french east africa with 4 inf (2 from transport), 1 tank. Assume no losses.
UK1: Transport over 2 inf into territory directly below frech east africa, fly fighter to south africa, build IC there.
Ger2: Attack Territory below fr. eas. afr, assume 1 inf. lose.
UK2:build 2 inf, or possibly 1 inf 1 fighter.
Germany will now face 3 infantry and 1 fighter( or, preferably, 2 infantry and 2 fighters) vs. likely 3 infantry and 1 tank. Barring lucky dice, germany will not be able to take it, and the UK can now pump 2 tanks a turn and retake africa.
The germans are now faced with two options:
- Build transports, and pump more men into africa
or
- Forget africa, concentrate on defending europe, crushing russia.
If they choose the first option, they’ll have to buy at least 1 or 2 transports, and it’ll be at least 4 turns before they can take S. Afr, and even when they do take it they will gain very little from it, as they will already have all of africa at that point.
If they choose the second option, UK gains the 11 prod. from africa, and then can push forces into asia in attempt to aid the likely beleagured russians.
Suggested Topics
