Deterrent to Egypt mIC on UK1 -"Ram-rod" play

[MarshmallowofWar]

@simon33:

@Marshmallow:

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Probably why you feel so strongly about the weakness of the Indian economy.

Well, let’s see. I can pick up four IPCs for India by taking Sumatra, or I can pick up 8 IPCs (2 IPCs and two free infantry units) for UK proper by activating Persia. So from a money perspective, Persia is better. Plus, six of those IPCs are in play immediately – I don’t necessarily need to wait a turn to actually have them participate in combat. Plus, the unit from West India can actually go to India rather than activating East Persia (which gives me nothing).

On UK2 from Persia I can take Iraq, take Ethiopia, take Somaliland, retake British Somaliland, retake Kenya, retake Anglo-Egypt Sudan, reinforce Egypt/Trans-Jordan, reinforce India, activate East Persia, or activate Northwest Persia. So in addition to making more money I also have more options.

Furthermore, my transport tends to live longer (if Japan goes J2 my transport is toast and my infantry that took the island is paralyzed or dead) meaning that it can be used in the Med early and then be used in the Pacific again later if I need it, the IPC gains tend to stick around longer, and despite a slightly weaker India my overall position globally is stronger.

I do see your side of it – India might not fall if I grab Sumatra, or it might hold out a turn longer. That is true, but while getting money for India is good, India by itself is not the sole focus. Looking at it from a global perspective, securing the Med and the Middle East early lets me reinforce India in the long term and keep pressure on Japan if India falls, preventing Japan’s capture of India from letting it fight a single-front war in the Pacific. It also secures Russia’s southern flank, allowing Russia to concentrate on the German threat. Finally, with Italy reduced to exactly one option (building ground troops to defend Europe) UK resources are freed up to back up the US forces.

Marsh

[simon33]

The thing is that it’s not 8IPC. It’s 2IPC and 6IPC 1 turn earlier. If you count getting into Iraq one turn earlier, it might become 4IPC. I don’t see how that 1inf makes much difference to India but going into East Persia can make a difference to USSR. If you get a G2 DOW, Russia can run a tank into Persia from Turkmenistan and then take Iraq USSR3 with a plane preferably, which is giving it 7IPC per turn. If not, you still get the 5IPC per turn for USSR taking Iraq which I feel is worthwhile.

So you only get the 4IPC to the UK if you give up some USSR potential income. I know what I would rather.

[MarshmallowofWar]

If I activate NW Persia one turn earlier, that means Russia can be prepositioned in Caucasus to take Iraq and still be able to turn those forces around to deal with Germany if necessary. If Russia sends the tank through Turkmenistan and NW Persia is not activated, the tank cannot be turned around.

As for 8 IPCs vs your way of putting it, I fail to see a distinction.

Marsh

[simon33]

@Marshmallow:

As for 8 IPCs vs your way of putting it, I fail to see a distinction.

Really?

You’re saying that it is an advantage to add 6IPC UK1 vs adding those 6IPC UK2. That is different to the 2IPC which are added UK1 which will not be added later if Persia is not activated UK1.

NW Persia can be activated by the Russians. The trouble comes in where there is a G3 DOW. Then you can only attack Iraq USSR4 because USSR3 you are activating NW Persia. Generally, I will soften up Iraq with the UK in this scenario. If you’re lucky, you can retreat to TransJordan which helps out Egypt.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Yeah, cause ANZAC is going to grab those 4 IPCs on A2.

Plus, I have those two extra infantry. If UK1 went badly because of dice, then I can kill Iraq on UK2 before the Axis can capitalize on the bad UK1 turn.  I also have all those other options with those infantry, including marching infantry from Persia back to India (they make it on UK4) and having the transport continue on to Africa to kill Italians. Plus, the transport itself lives (7 more IPCs).

NW Persia can be activated by the Russians after Germany goes to war with Russia. If I activate it for them, then (let’s say Germany goes on G3) then on R3 Russia can collect Iraq IPCs. Your way, they may never collect those IPCs if that tank has to turn around. Even if they do, they can’t collect them until R4 via Caucasus and R5 via Turkmenistan, and that’s just too late to make much of a difference. If they get them R3, the tank can even make it back to Moscow.

Marsh

[simon33]

I think my way is clearly better if there is a G2 DOW. Your way is arguably better with a G3 DOW.

If there is a J2 DOW, you will usually lose the TT, granted. But it’s done its damage.

If you would jump on Sumatra A2, then if UK already have it you can jump Celebes. 1IPC. Not sure how you could do either because if the Sumatran TT is toast then so is the Java TT.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Well, if Japan is holding off til 3 I can always continue with those ANZAC troops onto India for defense, or move them to the Middle East, or drop them elsewhere in Asia (like Celebes). If Japan goes J1 or J2, I grabbed as much money and saved as many resources as I reasonably can.

I’m not leaving money on the table. I’m taking as much money as I can UK1 and A1, grabbing the smaller amount UK2 and A2. Yeah, there is a small loss to India, but UK as a whole is still up more cash.

In my experience, G3 is the most common. If Germany is waiting til G4 then it’s academic, because the guy from West India can walk over and activate NW Persia.

Marsh

[simon33]

You still don’t seem to accept the argument that UK_Pac money is more valuable than either UK_Europe or ANZAC money!

[MarshmallowofWar]

That’s correct. I do not accept that position.

Also, my way if Germany goes G2 then Russia can collect Iraq IPCs on R2 and the tank can still make it back to Moscow on R5.

Marsh

[simon33]

You mean R3. R2 you will be claiming NW Persia presumably.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Yeah, you’re right. But your way doesn’t get them there before R3 anyway.

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

Perhaps I might be more inclined to accept your position on India money vs Europe money if you showed me what could be done with it other than building more units in India.

Marsh

[simon33]

More units in india are worth more than in sydney or persia, clearly.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Since I’ve already stated that I’m more than willing to let India fall to secure the Med, you’re going to have to do better than that. Even if I conceded your point, extra units in India would not be worth more than extra units in the Middle East and Egypt to me.

I usually choose to not lose in the Pacific and to win in Europe. ANZAC can turtle up nicely with the extra money, giving Japan a horrible logistical issue to deal with to win. India is subject to output from Japanese factories on the mainland, making it less of a pain for Japan to take. I’ll turtle Sydney and stack it with a few US reinforcements as well. That means ANZAC having extra money on A2 and A3 is good.

Now, if I were playing save India at all costs, I would probably give India the money.

Marsh

[siparo]

Marsh, what is to stop Japan from marching onto the Middle East and Africa after India falls?

If that happens, then a secure Med is no longer secure.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Well, in the first place its expensive for Japan to take India, even minus a couple of units from max. The victory tends to by almost-Pyrrhic, destroying a large chunk of air force and leaving only one ground unit. If UK is already established in the Middle East, with MICs in Egypt, South Africa, and possibly Persia pumping out units, Japan has a large logistical issue dealing with the output of two or three “closer” MICs while holding off the Allies in the Pacific and trying to hold onto the money islands and valuable coastal territories. Japan is trying to defend itself and build an advantage to let it push farther into the Middle East.

I’ve seen this in play and been on both sides of it – it’s like hiking uphill through mud when running Japan. Even if you try to bypass the Middle East with naval assets, you find yourself facing an equal or superior navy and air force because you’ve had to split your forces to hold off the US and ANZAC or you find your income evaporating as you hold India but find your hold on coastal China and the money islands (and your income) evaporating. Big ANZAC, with US support, is snatching money islands faster than you can retake them, and it’s cashing out decently even after India falls.

In short, I’ve never seen it be an issue if the UK cashes Italy out of the Med fast and secures Egypt/South Africa. The UK Med fleet can hold the split Japanese navy off and even push it back. Strat bombers and fighters from South Africa, fighters and tanks from Egypt, and infantry/tanks from Persia make it a really tough fight for Japan. And if Japan stops spending on India, it falls behind rapidly in firepower and will eventually have to give up India. Japan actually winds up parking a large chunk of its air force in India for defense because it is being outproduced and it takes so long for new Japanese units to arrive.

All ANZAC and the US have to do is not lose Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco for an entire turn and Japan eventually runs out of steam. Every fighter the US and ANZAC land in a victory city in defense requires Japan to spend 13 IPCs to retake it (7 for transport, 6 for troops), and Japan is already down in income. Every money island captured from Japan is a huge swing that Japan really can’t afford to recover from because it costs it the entire swing to reclaim the income, and then it has to defend it. All those Japanese transports have to be escorted because by now US, ANZAC, and UK each have one or more strat bombers roaming the Pacific, and a light escort means you never get that money back. Oh, and don’t forget the subs! A few subs, a strat bomber, and that transport never makes landfall even with a decent escort.

Marsh

[MeinHerr]

Now, I hope , people see the point of Italy taking Egypt with mIC on I-2.  With only the Persian factory, UK cannot hold the Middle East, with Italian African forces intact… …

Germany sacrificing part or all Luftwaffe,  will make this happen

Japan will only have to squeeze mildly…Italy a little harder, India or Persia will crack.  UK cannot hold both without Soviet help. USSR will have to deal with units coming up Caucuses via NW Persia…once Iraq is lost…  Bonus galore for Italy.

@Marshmallow:

Well, in the first place its expensive for Japan to take India, even minus a couple of units from max. The victory tends to by almost-Pyrrhic, destroying a large chunk of air force and leaving only one ground unit. If UK is already established in the Middle East, with MICs in Egypt, goneSouth Africa, and possibly Persia pumping out units, Japan has a large logistical issue dealing with the output of two or three “closer” MICs while holding off the Allies in the Pacific and trying to hold onto the money islands and valuable coastal territories. Japan is trying to defend itself and build an advantage to let it push farther into the Middle East.

I’ve seen this in play and been on both sides of it – it’s like hiking uphill through mud when running Japan. Even if you try to bypass the Middle East with naval assets, you find yourself facing an equal or superior navy and air force because you’ve had to split your forces to hold off the US and ANZAC or you find your income evaporating as you hold India but find your hold on coastal China and the money islands (and your income) evaporating. Big ANZAC, with US support, is snatching money islands faster than you can retake them, and it’s cashing out decently even after India falls.

In short, I’ve never seen it be an issue if the UK cashes Italy out of the Med fast and secures Egypt/South Africa.

Egypt not secured.

The UK Med fleet can hold the split Japanese navy off and even push it back. Strat bombers and fighters from South Africa, fighters and tanks from Egypt, and infantry/tanks from Persia make it a really tough fight for Japan. And if Japan stops spending on India, it falls behind rapidly in firepower and will eventually have to give up India. Japan actually winds up parking a large chunk of its air force in India for defense because it is being outproduced and it takes so long for new Japanese units to arrive.

Not if Italians take Persia

All ANZAC and the US have to do is not lose Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco for an entire turn and Japan eventually runs out of steam. Every fighter the US and ANZAC land in a victory city in defense requires Japan to spend 13 IPCs to retake it (7 for transport, 6 for troops), and Japan is already down in income. Every money island captured from Japan is a huge swing that Japan really can’t afford to recover from because it costs it the entire swing to reclaim the income, and then it has to defend it. All those Japanese transports have to be escorted because by now US, ANZAC, and UK each have one or more strat bombers roaming the Pacific, and a light escort means you never get that money back. Oh, and don’t forget the subs! A few subs, a strat bomber, and that transport never makes landfall even with a decent escort.

I-2 …. 6 units take Egypt…2 in Alex. 4 units in Sudan
I-3 … 3 units produced in Egypt… 6 units in Transjordan, 6 units in Egypt
I-4 … 6-7 units in Iraq… unless UK defends it with 8+ units…
I-5…  Next turn 9 units join existing 6 units to take Iraq…
I-6…  Persian factory falls

Japan just squeezes India with mainland Inf…either with 7-8 loaded TRs…or mIC built on J3…in IndoChina. India will fall J6… no Pyrrrhic victory… Good 14 Inf from mainland and 14 units on TRS with planes from Yunnan should clean house. Navy in Phillippines and Japan… Enough Navy to keep Allied Navy in check in Pacific. JapaN builds 2 CVS on J2,  more Navy each turn after that…  After money Island $$$ on J3 collected, J4…mega navy build… and Hawaii operation begins J5

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

@MeinHerr:

Now, I hope , people see the point of Italy taking Egypt with mIC on I-2.  With only the Persian factory, UK cannot hold the Middle East, with Italian African forces intact… …

Germany sacrificing part or all Luftwaffe,  will make this happen

Japan will only have to squeeze mildly…Italy a little harder, India or Persia will crack.  UK cannot hold both without Soviet help. USSR will have to deal with units coming up Caucuses via NW Persia…once Iraq is lost…  Bonus galore for Italy.

When you convince us that you can take Egypt with a proper UK response to your threat (which analysis has shown to be quite empty), then I’ll listen to you about sacrificing the Luftwaffe. Show us numbers on the battle calculator that support your position.

Oh, and then convince us that you can kill Moscow with no Luftwaffe…

Marsh

[Tirano]

UK has one theater it should focus on, and that is the Med/ME.

[simon33]

@Marshmallow:

Perhaps I might be more inclined to accept your position on India money vs Europe money if you showed me what could be done with it other than building more units in India.

Marsh

That is less clear than UK_Pac vs ANZAC money. It should be an axiom that UK_Pac money is better.

However, when you think about it, it is unlikely that you would not be buying out ME factories anyway - so the additional money has to be spent in London.