IC placement

Yes, as long as you have controlled that territory since the beginning of your turn

I like to build transports first because they can get free units off the islands and also help capture Hawaii, Aus / NZ, India and Madagascar.

If i build an IC in a captured territory, and I lose that territory, and another ally takes it over, its now their IC.

Thats not even a question, I just feel its the answer to one of the next ones to be asked.

@Nix:

But im all for the hit Japan first thing (not neccesarily killing him), but he can´t be let free to roam Asia/Africa/Australia-new zeeland…   it´s devestating for the allies, and more importantly the Russians.

If russia stacks Buryatia, puts 2 arm in yakut, UK kills the kwang trn (witch i failed to do twice in a row…), UK attacks FIC with 3 inf, 1 fig, lands fig in Sinkiang), Assembles UK Pacific fleet in SZ30.

USA can then choose how to do things, same for Russia and UK on turn 2.

Germany and Japan have allready shown their hand, and with 1 Trn Buryatia attack is risky, even if Pearl is ignored, if Fic was wiped, China will be harder, Sinkiang IC would look tempting.

If japan ignores pearl US have got a free carrier/sub/fig that can be nasty in the long run…

But my bottom line is Japan can´t be set loose unrestrained.

If anyone wants to monitor this in action see the league game between Nix and myself. ;)

My approach with Japan the two games I’ve played has been to build IC in India and FIC, build Arm there, and build TRNs also to keep a steady flow of Inf from Japan to Persia. That puts a lot of pressure on Cau to allow either Germany or Japan to take it. Once you have a big Axis presence in Cau, that Sink IC becomes less valuable to the Allies.

In other words, go around it - to the south. Germany can take Cau a lot sooner if Japan is in a position to immediately reinforce with a bunch of stuff.

My tourney game I also faced Russian defence (but no IC) and was also not able to take Sink / Yakut until J5 or so, but still there was enough money that I had 2 ICs and 7 TRNs running. I think Japan’s priorities should be building TRNs, taking Australia / New Zealand / India ASAP (J3) and picking up all the island Inf. Japan’s TRNs practically pay for themselves because of the island Inf supply, and because they increase the value of your forces by moving them to the front much faster.

Haven’t actually faced that American IC in Sink though.

@Jennifer:

In that case they are +4 IPC for Caucasus that turn.  However, they are not in an tactical advantage and Russia has suffered no loss for loosing it.

Net:  Russia Tactical Advantage with larger then normal stack in W. Russ.  IPC Gain +2 (WR)
Net:  Germany at no advantage, IPC gain of 4 in Cauc, IPC loss of 2 WR, net 2 IPC gain, tactical disadvantage due to larger then normal stack in WRuss.

The way I see it, Germany gains +4 IPC from the territory, and +1 IPC from the 1/3 chance of killing a unit with minimum value 3 IPC (one infantry), so net +5 IPC for investment of +3 IPC.  Germany also benefits from tying down the UK bomber for that turn, which is not trivial; a UK bomber can do a lot of damage to valuable naval units.

The Allies gain a tactical advantage from killing a forward placed German infantry, as well as the fact that the UK, not Russia, depleted Germany’s forces, which in turn allows Russia’s forces to mass and therefore be more efficient.

Russia gains nothing by holding West Russia because I believe Russia should hold West Russia until Germany has heavily massed at Ukraine.  That is, Russia should probably be holding West Russia anyways.

You can also download the ABattleMap. There you can see the correct unit placement.

http://www.flames-of-europe.de/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2

An IC in Anglo Egypt is the only one that makes sense, in my opinion. Africa is worth 12 IPCs per turn. If Germany, by buying an IPC in Africa, can hold Africa for an additional two turns, the benefits outweigh the cost, so it’s a good choice.