As I have read some of the stratagies for the UK they seem to all tell you not to build a IC in South Africa if Germany takes Anglo-Egypt Sudan first turn and has armour. To prevent them from just blitzing on down and taking your new IC hasn’t anyone ever just thought of moving your troop in SA up to the only non-neutral country above it. This prevents Germany from taking your new IC and allows you to start cranking tanks out into Africa. Now on a side note my friends and I have also found out that if you have a strong Russian player and they are doing well against Germany and keeping Japan at a reasonable distance and strength, you can go so far as to build a British Navy to assist the US in harassing Japan. It is not always a good idea but it keeps Japan occupied with all 3 allies rather then just having to deal with the US navy and the Russian troops.
I have noted while playing with friends that you should generally distrust the advice (and the ability to count correctly) of people named “Bill.”
You never did say what about my advice was incorrect. If you want to make fun of the statement after my advice go ahead, but if you wish to be spitefull twoards my advice then have the curtosy to tell me what is incorrect so that I might learn something from your “skill” at the game. After all that is part of what this site is, helping other people improve at the game.
P.S. sorry my name can’t be as cool as yours pal.
A: It was a joke, relax.
B: Actually, your name could have been that cool.
C: Do you actually mean this:
build a British Navy to assist the US in harassing Japan.
If you did, then I can see why Kobu would say to distrust your advice.
I wasn’t commenting on your advice at all. It is simply prudent to distrust people named Bill.
.
.
.
.
And I was ribbing another Bill who might happen to be reading this.
I have never done the IC in South Africa. Germany can take it, but only if you are allowed to blitz through neutral territories. GB can prevent this but they would have to abandon India, Syria, or Egypt to do it. Not really worth it in my opinion.
GB has to build the aircraft carrier to protect the American transports. And afterwards build transports and infantry to attack Europe or defend Russia. If the US and GB concentrate their efforts on a naval war against Japan it will gurantee the Japanese and Germans walking all over Russia.
Bill, never take anything on these posts personally, there are much more important things to worry about. Like whether or not you should start a land war in Asia.
hey cool it on the attack…you know what the posting guidelines say :wink: … anyway bill yes as I understand it moving an Inf. up to cover the IC would be the smartest move that you could preform… as far as the navy you would have to build an IC in India or possibly Australia…
@C_F:
I have never done the IC in South Africa. Germany can take it, but only if you are allowed to blitz through neutral territories.
Blitzing is not allowed through neutral territories. Do you play some kind of optional or “House Rule” that allows you to?
Typically, when I play, Japan is going to take India and Sinkiang on turn one, so it makes sense for Britain to, rather than build an IC in S.Af, have the Ftr and Syria Inf (assuming there’s only one unit there), and possibly have the tranny drag one India inf if there’s two armor or an armor and an Inf in AES, so the S.Af. IC’s no help, as Africa’s safe, and drop an AC and tranny in the UK Zone, so that the shuck is ready for UK2 and possibly even US1
GG, it wasn’t meant to be an attack, sorry if it was misunderstood.
MistaBiggs, I just couldn’t remember the rules on blitzing through nuetral countries. GB could still lose the factory fairly quickly if Germany went for it, but it is about a 50-50 shot. Still think that AC has to be built in home waters on GB T1.
If I am Germany and GB is putting 10 IPC’s a turn into tanks in Africa then I am going to have a lot of fun sinking US transports.
Keep in mind that UK doesn’t have to build 2 arm per turn via the IC in USA. It can build 2 inf per turn (that’s only 6 ipcs) – hardly a make or break amount for UK … especially considering the amount of ipcs per turn Africa will generate for UK and keep away from the blood-thirsty Germans!
In addition, the US can land troops in Africa – forcing any German troops to split it’s defenses/attacks.
Bill, Your suggestion is sound. However, if Germany took Syria as well and there is a German transport at Egypt, then the IC should not be build, because Germany can reach it by transport.
Also be prepared to send USAF planes to the IC to help defend it.
Cheers!
As far as the Germans using a transport to attack S. Africa on G2 … this can be easily stopped by using the UK transport as a blocker in the MADSZ. Problem solved…
Bill
Not making fun of your name.
Heed the advice of Zero.
i’ve seen the SA IC work well. And if Germany takes it - so what? What can they do, aside from hold Africa for a little longer? The thing is, their recently won IC’s will be wasted in trying to hold/defend Africa. At the same time, if you hold the ic, wipe out the German navy, and can hold off the japs, then you have a fun little stream of armor etc. north.
I don’t recomment building an ic at all. If you do, then you also need an aa gun. a 20 ipc investment. Germany can still overwhelm it if they try hard enough. Your best bet is to counter attack egypt with:
1 inf f/ syr
2 inf f/ind (trn)
1 ftr f/ind
1 bmb f/uk
This can take out as many as 4 german units. If there are more in egypt, you might just lost some african money until you can invade with your big fleet.
Frist off, I am glad it was just my missunderstanding. Second I was making a suggestion with the idea of a British fleet off of SA to help the US (answering a question there).
Now I have been disscussing this Idea with other people and I think you guys would be the right group of people to end this dispute. Two people I know have this dispute:
Person 1: They think that the UK should build an IC in south Africa to start cranking out tanks to take back Africa. Then in GB build an Aircraft Carrier and several transports (to give GB a total of 3-5 transports in GB). After that build nothing but tanks, placing two in SA a turn and the rest in GB. Of course each turn you take the tanks bought in GB and transporting them to the Russian front for defense. This is all assuming that Russia took out the sub and transport in Germany and GB or US destroyed the German navy off the coast of SE. His Idea was to eventually send transports down to SE so GB could assault SE with tanks.
Person 2: They think that GB should leave Africa to the US and build a group of transports in GB (again assuming Germany has no navy left) and the usual naval requirements (AC pretty much) then storm WE and pump all of its resources into supporting that foothold allowing Russia some breathing room and then making a push for Germany.
Which one has the better Idea? Or are they both bad?
Person 2…
I agree, person 2. Infantry before tanks when using transports.
Person 2.
With transports and inf you can accomplish the same thing and do it cheaper. Buy an AC and then get 4-6 trans depending on your income. With this set up you can unload inf to Fin, Kar, EE, Ger, or WE - lots of territories for you to strike or reinforce, thus Germany must protect them all. Now if you need to get a couple inf to Afr, move your fleet south one (off the coast of Spain) and unload your troops into Alg. Now Ger also has to defend SE for a turn. Also, once you hit 6 trans you can send one down to the coast of FWA to reclaim it, and from there you can send it to South Africa. Germany doesn’t have the inf to defend all of Africa and with 1 tran and 2 inf you can reclaim a lot very easily.
