US IPC's

@daggaz:

EXTRA BONUS PS:  We have an interesting houserule about the capture of an enemy capital.  The IPC’s from that capital are like a stash of gold.  They are heavy, and immobile (man, digital transfer of funds thru international banking cartels just DIDNT happen back then).  That said, if you take a capital, the IPC’s of that capital are in your hands, but they are stuck in the capital of origin.  You CANNOT spend them, until a turn where the capital is in your possession on the beginning of that turn, at which point those IPC’s are transferred to your general fund, to be spent anywhere. (It takes a full round to liberate enemy gold).  Even then, the captured capital only has limited production capabilities (ie, Moscow produces only 10 units) according to the normal rules.  If you take a capital, and the enemy retakes that capital on their next turn, the enemy also retakes their gold.  Note those IPC’s can only be spent on their next turn, provided they still own the capital.Â

So which money is lost when the surviving opponent’s heavy bombers do a stategic industrial bombing attack?

Hamar - i liked your thinking.  Still, i have to agree w/ SSG in that part of your strategy is a little rough.
Also if i’m Japan and building an IC on MAN (which i rarely do anymore), chances are i control enough of the board to move my Japan AA to the mainland.

Death Head, I think you are discussing Revised, not the original version of Axis and Allies.

www.axisandalliesworldclub.com

Axis & Allies Best Online CD Club.

thx

The basic stratagy is to get your men of the island and counter an allied factory in India. So you need more transports to get everything done…

On the other hand, I believe a South african IC can work rather well:

Ger1: Invade french east africa with 4 inf (2 from transport), 1 tank. Assume no losses.

UK1: Transport over 2 inf into territory directly below frech east africa, fly fighter to south africa, build IC there.

Ger2: Attack Territory below fr. eas. afr, assume 1 inf. lose.

UK2:build 2 inf, or possibly 1 inf 1 fighter.

Germany will now face 3 infantry and 1 fighter( or, preferably, 2 infantry and 2 fighters) vs. likely 3 infantry and 1 tank. Barring lucky dice, germany will not be able to take it, and the UK can now pump 2 tanks a turn and retake africa.

The germans are now faced with two options:

Build transports, and pump more men into africa

or

Forget africa, concentrate on defending europe, crushing russia.

If they choose the first option, they’ll have to buy at least 1 or 2 transports, and it’ll be at least 4 turns before they can take S. Afr, and even when they do take it they will gain very little from it, as they will already have all of africa at that point.

If they choose the second option, UK gains the 11 prod. from africa, and then can push forces into asia in attempt to aid the likely beleagured russians.

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27