Major Factory in Romania

@Fortress:

I think that your tactic of waiting until G2 probably helps, no? UK can’t commit to offense with the Sealion threat still being real. And that probably keeps him from scrambling. And leaves you with options, but at the cost of one turn of no production out of that IC if you do eventually drop it. I think there’s a compelling case to wait like you did. I think I actually see more value in this than in G1 because of the value that it gives in possibly allowing Italy some breathing room, while leaving the option open for punishing UK if they get too uppity too early.

yes and no,

its a tradeoff, if germany saves 30, then they should keep their BB alive, causing a little less dmg to britain, also there is a good chance of not being able to kill the british BB without building an AC on turn 2. There is also a greater odds that the italian fleet gets hit.

However if they build the major, they can build 10 inf and 10 mech on turn 2 (gaining 10 IPC of value), while using their BB to cause maximum dmg to britain, Then if britain scrables, they have to build those ftrs up again before they can start landing.

The main goal on the western front was to build enough planes that US/UK could not just land, then later so that they could not split their fleet. Germany held yugo, while italy held bulgaria, the plan was to build minor in yugo and some ABs around the adriatic, in case US wanted to send in only subs. Since Germany has enough planes, so that US cannot split the fleet, US cannot send subs to med if their fleet want to land in norway, italy or germany can build DDs under cover of 9fighters, so the subs have to retreat, from the adriatic.

greatest weakness is kill germany first tho.
BTW, we played 14 VCs so japan would not have taken hawaii for the win, but for economic destruction.

I think there are 2 identifiable advantages to the G1 Romania factory in a Barbarossa

1. Since Romania is a spot closer to Moscow, you will be able to produce a row of inf/art where you wouldn’t be able to do so in Berlin.  But in a planned Barbarossa, this benefit only occurs on 1 turn (G2 for a G6 take, or G3 for a G7 take, etc).

2. For the same reason, mechs built in Romania are able to reach Moscow a turn sooner.  So 2 turns before you intend to attack Moscow you can build 10 mech/tanks in Romania.  Again, this benefit will only occur on 1 turn (G4 for a G6 take, or G5 for a G7 take).

I feel the 1st point is relatively minor, while the 2nd point is the strongest argument for a Romania IC.

The disadvantages include….

1. Inflexibility.  If you decide to buy transports to attack UK G2, then this factory is destined to fall into the hands of the Russians.  So imo UK might make a more aggressive UK 1 purchase against a Romania factory then they would against an all inf/art buy.

2. It would require some maths to determine if the advantages for Barbarossa described above are worth the sacrifice of not getting 10 inf or 6 art 2 inf on Berlin on the 1st turn.  I suspect that they aren’t but I could be wrong.

3. Suppose I’m going for a G6 Moscow take.  So with the Romania factory, to make the investment worthwhile i need to produce all mech/arm on Romania on G4.  The problem is that if Allies are full on KGF I might not be able to maximize that opportunity (i might need to buy inf/air to defend West Germany).  The longer you wait to take Moscow, the more relevant this point becomes.

I think this is one of the best thought-out and discussed threads I’ve read in a while.

To your point, can’t you, for the cost of an extra 2 IPC, build a minor in Romania in conjunction with, say, 6I in Germany on G1? Then you get 90% of the benefit of those 10I that you could build on Berlin G1 (3I on Romania G2=3I on Berlin G1). You get to upgrade later if you want to and pay a 2 IPC premium for the flexibility. But if you need to change gears, you’re not wedded to the plan. And even if you do something slightly different, you still get full functionality of a forward minor IC for artillery to provide punch to the 2IPC southern ttys.

I really dont think the minor is worth it, not to produce infantry at least, lets say you build inf on g2 and g3. then you paid 12 +9+9=30 for 6 infantry, might as well just build 4 mechs on g1, 2 on G2, they will reach east poland on the g3, and you will have saved 10 ipc for an ftr on gr (or 2 more mechs)

it has to be the major ic if you are planning to pump infs/mechs.

if you are not planning to assault moscow, and take the middle east, then you might chose to build a minor ic in rostov, to be able to produce 9 inf/mech/art each turn in ukraine/rostov/ stalingrad

I think the main difference between a major in rumania and building 10 inf in germany is that you will be able to stack ukraine on G4, instead of stacking west ukraine on G4, that means you can produce mechs/tanks in ukraine on G5, for the moscow hit, OR you might be able to collect stalingrad/cauc/middle east one turn before the schedual.

this ofcourse depends on if you are able to gen enough to ukraine on G4, you might need italy to take it, so that luftwaffe can land there, but then the benefit of having the ukrainian factory is not as big.

if the real prize is the middle east, then getting it a turn early will mean collecting all the objectives one more turn, that might be the difference.

If I go after USSR 100% I often will build a minor in Rom to pump out armor, plunk minors in Nuke and Ros to plunk out inf and art with the minor in sukr… a few turns of these guys churning out units and the USSR is dead.  (Although they always just pull back and run around Asia…)

Come to think of it, has anyone had a real battle for Moscow lately?  All I’ve seen and done is retreat with the USSR