@coachdcj Player 2 is correct. From the Official Rules Clarifications document (page 4):
You can never give an ally anything: units, territories or I.P.C.'s.
Violating Neutrality
-
NO your not. The idea works only is specific situations:
- russians leave Cau light or empty and
- Germany was able to do well on her turn
- Russia is going after Japan with her armor ( also basically any direction other than against germany)
thats it. its the only time to consider such a plan. lets keep the idea in context. Now the spain idea is much more common in games.
it does not matter whether the player is good or poor it can work against either depending on the correct circumstances.
-
I think you need to scrap that turkey idea son!! :-D
-
I’m still not seeing it. I get that theoretically there is a use for turkey in avoiding going through Persia, but I just can’t see how that could practically be of any use through the course of a game, even given the bizarre circumstances you describe. Could you please list the exact move that is in question, and possibly the followup move(s) on the next turn?
-
I agree. It’s not like that area of the world is overly defended in most circumstances, ESPECIALLY around G1-G3!
Spain, on the other hand, is much better. It allows USA and UK to dump infantry into undefended land. Best is if UK takes it so USA and USSR can dump fighters into it before Germany can go, thus making it a real B*TCH to take for the Germans and allowing the allies to start moving armored and infantry units in, instead of cannon-foddering France in the hopes of winning a war of attrician against the Germans.
-
Here’s a nifty trick using neutrals….
In my old group there arose the opinion that Brazil was somehow of value to the Japanese and that it could not be defended because it is on an island more or less. Often the Japanese moving into Argentina or Chile would force the US to build new and unnecessary transports in EUSSZ in order to counter such an action, and this itself was much of the point of the move because from Argentina Japan can hit Austrailia, Nz, or even Africa depending on where in Argentina they are. My counter to any potential Brazil move is actually quite simple which is move armor into Panama and violate Columbia. It is true that if the 2arm must attack 2inf the US will still lose more Ipcs than they kill and protect but the benefit of this is that 2arm in Panama is such a noncomittal that should the Japanese try to use Argentina as a feint before going to Africa or Austrailia they will find they have only wasted time. Should they committ to it they will lose 14ipcs of units(because I will try to kill with air the boat) while I should lose only 8ipcs of my own units(-3 Brazil and -5 for 1 tank). This is basically the cheapest, easiest way to defend Brazil, and at the same time should Japan decide its not worth it those tanks can easily slide back into the supply chain in WUS towards Europe without losing much time.
Because of this I would say avoid going for Brazil as the Axis since it should cost you more to possess it than it will for the US.
-
The problem with a Brazil bid by Japan is it pulls the Japanese fleet out of position.
Personally, I like keeping those BBs and AC in the northern pacific, not out near S. America. Just the thought of 2 fighters, 2 bbs (defending at 4) and an AC defending at 3 puts chills down the American player when s/he has to contemplate making a navy for the Pacific.
-
You don;t send Capital Ships on the Brazil run… only a lone TRN… Same as you do for the South Africa run…
Still cost prohibitive, unless you can land and run for a while… -
@ncscswitch:
You don;t send Capital Ships on the Brazil run… only a lone TRN… Same as you do for the South Africa run…
Still cost prohibitive, unless you can land and run for a while…I don’t exactly send trannies anywhere without capital ship support if I can help it! And since, at the moment of a Brazil run, the US fleet is non-existant, I’d probably send my capital ship with the tranny. Actually, since the US BB and Tran are probably by Mexico, I’d send the AC with the tranny, the fighters and BBs to Mexico to kill the US fleet. (I’m assuming that US moved their fighters in USA 1 and didn’t build more.)
-
The Brazil Run is attempted when the Pacific is vacant of US ships (they are eitehr sunk, or went to the Atlantic).
It is an annoyance move for Japan to execute in a KGF game.
-
@ncscswitch:
The Brazil Run is attempted when the Pacific is vacant of US ships (they are eitehr sunk, or went to the Atlantic).
It is an annoyance move for Japan to execute in a KGF game.
Problem then is I have to dedicate a transport and 2 infantry (14 IPCs) on a 6 round mission instead of shuffling infantry into Asia. 6 rounds = 12 infantry potentially lost to teh Russian campaign.
-
Jennifer, do you bother to take Australia and New Zealand as Japan, then?
If so, you need to dedicate a transport and at least one infantry to that cause already, before even considering Brazil. The infantry that you use there are usually pulled from an island that is not reachable within 1 turn to get to Asia anyway, so it’s misleading to count the cost of that infantry in your analysis. Therefore the total expenditure is 8 IPCs (the transport) to gain 3 IPCs of income for sure (AUS and NZE) and either 3 IPCs of income (Brazil) for a turn or two before the US retakes it, or at minimum the ability to distract the US from its purely atlantic campaign and the possibility of diverting to Madagascar (1 IPC which can theoretically be taken in the same turn Brazil would have). Once you take NZE, heading east to Brazil/Madagascar is probably the next best choice unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
If you DON’T take AUS/NZE, I have to ask why not? You are giving the UK 3 free IPCs per turn and costing the Axis 3 => net effect of 6 IPCs difference. Sure it requires the initial 8 IPC investment of the transport but that pays off in two turns easily. It’s especially potent if you are trying to threaten M84, since those are much needed IPCs that can swing the balance in your favor. Add to that the above possibilities of what to do with that transport afterwards and you can see it’s definitely not a wasted effort.
-
Actually, no, I don’t. I usually focus primarily on Moscow and leave the islands be. After all, it would be much more efficient to take Hawaii then Aus/NZE or Brazil and I never take that either…not unless America’s being a jerk and building navy, then I use it as an air base.
-
She brings up a good point…the best way to get the US out of a naval buildup is to go heavy against Russia. One of my favorite techniques is to build infantry for the first 4 turns while building factories, NO transports, then switch on turn 5 to all armor production for a Dethstryke around turn 8. If the US is messing with a navy in the Pacific then it should take them until about then to really get going. Ultimately the loss of Borneo, New Guinea, Okinawa, and even the East Indies won’t matter that much but Moscow always will and certainly if it is taken by the Japanese.
-
I DID say it was cost-prohibitive :-P
Although, against a non-master class opponent, the Brazil strike can be VERY beneficial.
Also, it does not take 6 moves, even starting from Japan. 2 moves take Panama. Then sail through, grab West Indies on turn 3, Brazil on 4.
Or, from New Zealand only 2 more to Brazil, then one to land in western Africa…
-
Turkey is the bizamm. I violate it ecvery game on teh first turn with an ARM. The arm can take two British territories resulting in a 4 point flip on round two. It can then threaten an unoccupied Russian teritory. Meet up with a German landing force into russian territory. Or double back into Africa. England will be hard pressed to spare even a single infantry from teh battle with Japan, and there is no way Russia can afford to send unit down. Also the TP move blociks off the British sub retreat north, and the TP will not be targetted by any ruusian with any sense. Turkey is KEY.
-
A;so to jump ion on the Japan debate. Whether to take New Zealand and Australia really depends on how GErmany is doing in Africa. In general you want teh UK to be at 20 IPC. You really need to go no lower. I am assuming here that the UK player bought an IC in INdia first turn supported by a U.S. IC in SINkiang. 20 prevents a 4 INF, 2ARM buy. ANy less than twenty isn’t all that worth while. The idea is simply to cut off their tank supply in India so they can no longer counter attacj the Japanese so that the Japanese can take Sinkiang.
-
That isn’t to say that well timed bombimg run when they are at twenty wouldn’t do allot of good right before the Japanese roll into India. The Brits will be put in the poistion of abandoning pressure in Europe for a turn to fortify a possibly lost cause or to abandon an IC. Tough descision.
-
@ncscswitch:
I DID say it was cost-prohibitive :-P
Although, against a non-master class opponent, the Brazil strike can be VERY beneficial.
Also, it does not take 6 moves, even starting from Japan. 2 moves take Panama. Then sail through, grab West Indies on turn 3, Brazil on 4.
Or, from New Zealand only 2 more to Brazil, then one to land in western Africa…
I think you’re math is a bit off. Japan to Hawaii is move one. Hawaii to Argentina with invasion is move two. Argentina back to Hawaii is move 3. Hawaii back to Japan is move 4.
That’s an opportunity cost of 8 infantry you could have moved into Asia for the loss of 3 IPCs invading Argentina and the gain of 3 IPCs a turn until recaptured for Brazil.
Now, I do agree that in a game with lesser experienced players, I’ll go for options like this. 1) It shows them what can be done. 2) It’s more dynamic then going with a “tight” game. 3) I get bored if the game goes too easy. 4) They never play me again if I truelly whollop them hard!
-
I stand corrected, you are right, SUD. You could purchase a replacement transport to soak up the loss of moving one to Argentina. I just normally like to keep efficient and only have the number of transports I need to do the job without extras if I can avoid it.
Then again, in classic, you could very well need that extra transport once you exceed maximum capacity. (Not as much of a threat in revised since Japan will rarely need more then 4 transports to move 100% of it’s builds from the island to the mainland, in my limited experience.)
-
Brazil is merely a nuissance move, nothing more. For this reason an analysis of it based upon economics is not really worthwhile. If for example the Japanese lost 2inf and a transport in exchange for just 1US infantry but it did something to the US gameplan then this would be worthwhile. So to me the question is how do you make Brazil as much of a wash as you can, and I still come back to columbia and armor in Panama. Yes the US will lose an arm probably but the cost is still good for the US and more importantly this is a reactive move so that when Japan invades Argentina the US invades Columbia, and if Japan pulls back you can go from Panama back to the WUS.
Suggested Topics
