@simon33
Thx for the answer!
Taking Iraq UK1
-
Allweneed is 5-0 in league play and I am 4-0 (soon to be 7-0)
Heh heh I think you mean 7 - 1…
Another downside to establishing an IC in Iraq over Egypt, is that the Egypt IC allows you to establish a naval presence in the relative safety of SZ81 that can immediately be moved to SZ97 when you want to hit Italy or the Balkans. You only get a one-turn delay shucking units north and east from Egypt over Iraq. But the Iraq IC might be a better response to the G1/J1 attack since timing could be critical enough that even the 1 turn delay is too much.
-
If you lose egypt as the allies, you should enter desperation mode, unless Russia is ballin hard somehow (like germany had to invest a bunch into it instead of dedicating himself to barb).
-
I think its a pretty strong play as an IC in Iraq opens lots of doors for the UK to backup Russia, support Calcutta and Cairo and put a threat on the Med with bombers that can land in Malta.
I’d probably be willing to lose Cairo for a round or two in the mid-game to gain those advantages.
-
how do you get it back when it is so easy for the axis to park air there? It is usually a real pain.
-
If no sealion, I could see pulling everything back to Sudan on round 2 and letting Italy take Egypt for 1 turn, then liberating it UK3. To do that it might be good to build 1 artillery in South Africa UK1 and then 1 art and 2 transports UK2.
-
If no sealion, I could see pulling everything back to Sudan on round 2 and letting Italy take Egypt for 1 turn, then liberating it UK3. To do that it might be good to build 1 artillery in South Africa UK1 and then 1 art and 2 transports UK2.
I also think stepping back to set up a counterattack on Egypt is an excellent strategy. Italy has options on everything in the Mediterranean. Giving them juicy targets (UK units sitting there) is a great way to get killed. Invite them in for supper, and then you know exactly how much you need to kick them out of your house!
-
IC in persia and IC in Egypt are still better in my eyes. Planes you build i persia are 1 flight away from russia and the IC is a lot safer from the axis than the one in Iraq.
Egypt allows strong naval build up and potential quick defense buys.
-
IC in Iraq is an excellent idea.
Russia doesn’t need that 5 bucks a turn!
No need to build a factory in a place where you can directly fly fighters to Moscow, like Persia!
-
I also think stepping back to set up a counterattack on Egypt is an excellent strategy.
Depending on what else has been happening, you could easily be playing with fire there. If Germany sends a few planes down there as Cow already said, it can take a long time to build up enough from an Iraq + Cape Town IC to root them out. Especially if you then also let them get Jordan as well.
-
@Eggman:
I also think stepping back to set up a counterattack on Egypt is an excellent strategy.
Depending on what else has been happening, you could easily be playing with fire there. If Germany sends a few planes down there as Cow already said, it can take a long time to build up enough from an Iraq + Cape Town IC to root them out. Especially if you then also let them get Jordan as well.
Good. Kill the German planes and Russia will be fine.
You could set up a very strong counterattack on Egypt UK3 if you play all the cards right. At the end of round 1 the ANZACs and French infantry go to Transjordan. On UK2 all units from Egypt, Persia and East Persia go to Sudan, killing any Italians there. If you built an artillery in south africa UK1 and now you build another art and 2 transports UK2, you will have a pretty respectable counterattack force to take back Egypt on UK3. On UK2 you could also send the fighter from India, the bomber that probably went to Canada, and maybe the fighter/tac that went to morocco after clearing z96 all to places in range of Egypt (Iraq for India fighter, french west africa for bomber, nigeria for fig/tac). There is also that battleship off Malaya that can make it to z81 for the liberation UK3. If the tank/mech survived in Iraq and Italy doesn’t take transjordan they can come in too. Italy could clear the 3 infantry from transjordan to stop that but that would mean less in Egypt. If anyone wants to airstrike your carrier, 2 planes, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers and a battleship in z81, then great. No luftwaffe.
-
Plus the strategy is still young, so chances are that Italy and Germany are not colaberating on a early take of Egypt with the intention of holding it with German planes. Might be able to get away with an abandon to counter strategy in early games before axis players have time to figure out a proper counter of their own.
-
If anyone wants to airstrike your carrier, 2 planes, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers and a battleship in z81, then great. No luftwaffe.
The original post doesn’t say anything about skipping the SZ97 attack, so that’s an open question. Does the Iraq attack mean you have to skip SZ97 in order to cover Egypt?
-
You need the carrier to do the Iraq attack or else land your planes in Transjordan or Syria. You could still do z97 but those planes would be left very exposed. I really don’t like the Taranto attack because everytime I’ve done it I lost London but that’s probably just me :-P
I might stay away from this whole Iraq plan if Germany takes South France G1. Problem is they could build transports G2 and reinforce Italian Egypt G3. Otherwise it sounds pretty good though.
-
The only reason for taking Iraq with the UK (rather than the Soviets) would be to have UK minor ICs in both Iraq and Persia.
If 2 mIC aren’t planned (in the short or long term) … what advantage does Iraq have over Persia?
-
The only reason for taking Iraq with the UK (rather than the Soviets) would be to have UK minor ICs in both Iraq and Persia.
If 2 mIC aren’t planned (in the short or long term) … what advantage does Iraq have over Persia?
You prevent the Italians from activating it.
Kill the pro-Axis infantry while there are only 3 of them.
Opens up flight possibilities over the middle east quickerThat’s just off the top of my head
-
You need the carrier to do the Iraq attack or else land your planes in Transjordan or Syria. You could still do z97 but those planes would be left very exposed. I really don’t like the Taranto attack because everytime I’ve done it I lost London but that’s probably just me
The SZ97 attack seems like a must, otherwise the combined Italian fleets will have no trouble sinking whatever you left in SZ98. If you hide in the Red Sea instead, then you’ve ceded them the
Control of the MedNO for free and they will have no problems shucking more men into the Middle East than you, especially if you have to split your purchases with further reinforcement to London. Even if you are leaving planes behind to cover London it is still probably worth the 97 attack since Italy is more likely to scramble, which will allow you to kill their Fighters. -
Ceding a 5 IPC bonus on I1 to save your fleet is not necessarily a bad idea. It’s better than getting your ships sunk in the first round.
-
You prevent the Italians from activating it.
Kill the pro-Axis infantry while there are only 3 of them.
Opens up flight possibilities over the middle east quickerThat’s true. If an Italian takeover is imminent and Russia isn’t able to attack neutrals yet, it makes sense to kill those troops.
I still don’t see the benefit of attacking it on UK1 (unless your opponent likes to land in Syria on I1?).
-
Yeah, I know.
I normally drill Ethiopia, often with both loaded transports and both cruisers.
I’m not sold on ALWAYS attacking an Italian fleet right away, though pasting Z95 fleets netted me 2 easy wins (but I got really luck dice both times)I just attacked Iraq on UK1 for the first time vs. Allweneed. In hindsight it was brilliant, because the Iraqis never killed a single man - it was like Desert Storm, I guess. :evil:
I’m not sure what circumstances led me to do that - mainly a J1 attack, I think. Then you have 2 transports 2 spaces from reinforcing India on UK2 if necessary. You can’t say that about most other UK deployments.
Suggested Topics
