Stop the madness, and start the presses

@special:

@Cmdr:

Turkey is not something you really need to worry about “holding” it is more an attack to prevent Germany from getting 8 more guys.  Once you “clear it” it’s a matter of a British complex in Iraq to keep it cleared so that the Germans cannot use it as a short cut.

And also a possible location for another US IC.

… although Saoudi Arabia may be a better (and safer) place for that. Easy to take and good strategic location (plus there’s the Egypt NB they can use in sz81).

Later in the game, perhaps.  But if you lose Turkey and liberate later and want to put a complex there, maybe a British one is better?

@knp7765:

One other thing about Sweeden and the German NO, it says Germany has to control Denmark and Norway with Sweeden not being Pro-Allied or Allied controlled.  So, if the Allies manage to take Norway and keep it, that ruins the German NO for Sweeden and you don’t have to attack it, unless you just want those extra 3 IPCs.

Again, more worried about the free infantry for Germany, less about the actual territory.

@Cmdr:

Later in the game, perhaps.  But if you lose Turkey and liberate later and want to put a complex there, maybe a British one is better?

It is probably too close to the front for an early IC there, i suppose. Personally i would prefer a US IC over a UK IC for obvious reasons (USA being rich and faraway, with less building options). Chances it is safe to build one and not lose it are probably rather small anyway.

That said, i am liking the idea about Saoudi Arabia for a US IC more and more (if i ever get to actually attacking neutrals in a game…), unless there’s a huge japanese fleet closeby ;)

I mentioned British because I usually pressure Germany with America and build complexes in Egypt, Iraq and C. Persia for England.  If I was trading Turkey, then it is probably more likely that it is taken by Montegomery staging an attack from Iraq than it is the United States landing troops after skirting the southern coast of Italy.

A scary thought would be minor complexes for England in:  Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, C. Persia and Saudia Arabia.  15 ground units a round. eek!  (I’m sure if they have all those complexes, they are probably earning in the mid 40s anyway so they can use them all.)

Now I know how Charlton Heston felt at the end of Soylent Green! This is not srtatgey but abuse and minipulation of the rules to achieve some inane end result (like russians in ireland) just for its own sake. You spend 45IPC on infrastructure(IC) to do what excatly? Is Germany or Italy really threating the middle east that much? Think of what you could do with that money spent on units and launching attacks on western Europe. This sounds like just faffing about for the sake of it.

Any scenario may be possible, but not necessarily probable.  The Russian NO might motivate me to try and take Finland and Norway but that would be a real stretch.  Islands? no way.

@Clyde85:

Now I know how Charlton Heston felt at the end of Soylent Green! This is not srtatgey but abuse and minipulation of the rules to achieve some inane end result (like russians in ireland) just for its own sake. You spend 45IPC on infrastructure(IC) to do what excatly? Is Germany or Italy really threating the middle east that much? Think of what you could do with that money spent on units and launching attacks on western Europe. This sounds like just faffing about for the sake of it.

45?

5x12 = 60 IPC. wink

No, it’s an end game tactic to open a second front into Europe and convince your opponent to surrender.  Up until that point, you have maybe the complex in Egypt and MAYBE a second one in the Middle east to support it, but the second one is probably not needed.  (I like Iraq, it means you can walk infantry to Egypt in 2 rounds instead of 3 and if you are not doing well in the Med for whatever reason, that means more defenders faster.)

Towards the end of the game you might drop a new complex a round and then start amassing an army to walk through Turkey into Greece and threaten the SE European theater, just to put some nails in the coffin.  I never intended to imply that 5 or more minor complexes in the Middle East was something standard!

@Vance:

Any scenario may be possible, but not necessarily probable.  The Russian NO might motivate me to try and take Finland and Norway but that would be a real stretch.  Islands? no way.

Ireland is guarenteed.  Why not take it?  Cost: 7 IPC, gain:  7-11 rounds of 3 IPC each round for 21-33 IPC.  That’s probably the best return on investment that Russia can EVER expect to have!

Crete, Sardinia and Sicily are just a little harder and requires getting the Americans into the Med to guarentee.  By then that one Russian you walked to Egypt early in the game might not be there anymore, but probably will.  Then it’s just a matter of not losing it and loading it on an American transport to offload at will anywhere you want.

One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.  If Germany has the means to take Sweden, they could activate those 6 infantry and also earn 3 IPCs per turn (which cancels out what USSR gets for Ireland).  I can only imagine it being worthwhile if USA is going to violate the neutrality of Spain or some other strict neutral anyway, and if USSR solidly owns Finland and Norway.  That latter condition is hard to guarantee.

@Vance:

One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.

I think thats incorrect, isnt Ireland pro-allied?

@Clyde85:

@Vance:

One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.

I think thats incorrect, isnt Ireland pro-allied?

Correct, Ireland is pro-allied, so Sweeden is unaffected by Russia annexing it.

Oh look, so it is!  Ireland is pro-allied (except the IRA).  So USSR can have Ireland as a freeby if they can manage to build a transport in z127, keep Germany from sinking it, and then float a unit to z111.  Hmmm nope.

@Vance:

Oh look, so it is!  Ireland is pro-allied (except the IRA).  So USSR can have Ireland as a freeby if they can manage to build a transport in z127, keep Germany from sinking it, and then float a unit to z111.  Hmmm nope.

All it takes is 1 turn of the transport being alive. Transport is dropped in SZ127, next turn it can move to 111 (and potentally protected by any UK Navy and Scrambled Fighters) and drop the infantry off in Scotland. Losing the 7IPC’s the transport costs is worth the recurring 3IPC bonus. Keep a few Russian fighters Novogrod (can’t remember if that’s the name of the Russian Territory there or not) to scamble against any German planes sent the turn that it’s vulnerable. If Germany sends several planes to try and destroy it than you’ve diverted a fairly large amount of units that could defnately have been used in other places that turn.
For the pros definately outweigh the cons in my opinion for Ireland.
As for the middle east debate you guys have going on I think it’d be a waste of resources for Britan to build that many IC’s in the area (excluding Egypt, I build one there myself when I play as the UK). You’d be much better off just buying the units and moving them through Tranz-Jordan.

a submarine could also sink that transport

If Germany has a Sub in 112, then Russia should build a Destroyer in 127.  That ensures that the Transport will survive Germany’s initial attack.  It’s still very worth it, and will serve later to help open up 125.  
This NO still needs work.  I like the intention a lot - give Russia a bonus for Finland/Balkan states - but it definitely needs some fine tuning.

@Vance:

a submarine could also sink that transport

So could a battleship, what’s your point? It’s not all that unlikely that Russia could get a man to Ireland, if Germany placed a ship in 125 to try and block the Russian NO there then Russia (provided it couldn’t sink the ship on it’s turn) wouldn’t move the transport until after the path has been cleared.
If Germany loses the ship (likely to happen because Russia wouldn’t have bothered purchasing the transport to begin with if there wasn’t already an Allied presance around England) then Germany would have to continue to buy ships to prevent Russia from moving the transport, tying up more Axis resources while not costing Russia anything. Tactics like that make it an easy victory for the Allies.
I agree with Alsch, I like the principle behind the NO, but it definately needs some adjustments.

The point is that you need at least a transport, a destroyer, and 1 infantry, which adds up to 18 IPCs.  If you manage to pull it off and take Ireland, will you make back that 18IPCs before the game ends?  USSR could spend that $18 on 6 infantry instead.

@Vance:

The point is that you need at least a transport, a destroyer, and 1 infantry, which adds up to 18 IPCs.  If you manage to pull it off and take Ireland, will you make back that 18IPCs before the game ends?  USSR could spend that $18 on 6 infantry instead.

I disagree.

1)  I buy a destroyer for Russia anyway.  I can more than recoup the cost by sinking a German submarine in SZ 125 which would net me 11 IPC. (5 IPC for the National Objective + 6 German IPCs for the Submarine I just sent to Davey Jones’ Locker.)  That’s a 3 IPC benefit to me as Russia.  Of course, Germany COULD attack it, but they have to plan for 2 Fighters and a Tactical Bomber scramble (even if I do not scramble, they have to plan for it, which means they are sending a LOT of planes to SZ 127 and not into ground combats elsewhere!)

2)  The Russian infantry is not lost.  It is now defending against Sea Lion and may even be reincorporated into the combined Allied armies at a later time.

3)  The transport might be lost, it might not.  Sure, in SZ 111 it is suseptible to German attack.  Again, you can land 3 fighters in Scotland and make Germany assume you will scramble them and thus weaken their attacks elsewhere.  Or they might fore go the attack or you can defend it with British ships.

4)  Ireland is net gain all the way.  Germany and Italy will NEVER get Ireland, so one may as well just assume 8+ rounds of +3 IPC for Russia each round.  Sure, there are the off games where the Italians or Germans might be in position to recover Ireland, but it’s not SOP.

mm i’ve always played you could only build IC’s on territories you started with, I take it by reading throu here none of you follow that?

how exactly would say canada build and run a manufacturing complex in a foriegn land during a war… everything was built at home and shipped to where it needed to go…

@salan:

mm i’ve always played you could only build IC’s on territories you started with, I take it by reading throu here none of you follow that?

how exactly would say canada build and run a manufacturing complex in a foriegn land during a war… everything was built at home and shipped to where it needed to go…

Do you play with Canada as a separate power?  In the basic Global 1940 game, Canada is simply a part of UK Europe’s economy.  I know that some people like to make Canada a seperate power though.
In any case, if you take a territory worth at least 2 IPCs or more, you can place a Minor IC there and build your forces closer to the front.  That way you don’t have to transport it all the way from Canada.  You just can’t build Major ICs on foreign territory.

I think I should make mention what I find off about the ideas you’ve put forward here Jen, I see it alot with people posting here, so im not just singeling you out, but now seem like an appropriate time to mention.

Years ago, when I used to play a table top games called warhammer 40,000, I had a friend that would talk about things a unit could do, as though it was something it would do, ie: a unit could move an extra D6 inches, and therefore, he would always talk as though the units movment was 6in more then it was. This belies the true nature of the unit, as you had to roll the dice, and you could get a 1. I see this basic problem comming through here as well, and in a number of other posts. You are correct in everything you say, as all these things can in fact, happen, however there is no guarntee of success. You can buy a single destroyer and transport for the Soviets and use it to kill the German sub, however you could not hit it, and get your entire Soviet artic fleet sunk. Odds would say you should win in a naval battle with 1 destroyer vs 1 sub, but that is no guarante that you will win. The Dice Gods can be a fickle and cruel, and I think most people are seeing the obvious danger in all of the scenarios you have put forward. You can do all these things, but they could also all end horribly. I think most people dont see the risk to pay off ration as being worth. Having an air fleet get wiped out while attempting to clear out Sweden because of bad dice could be a game changer. Simply because something can be done (the rules allow for it) dosnt mean it will.