I argued should I for Scotland too which I said no as you have to worry about that being Sea Lion invasion and you can just beat it up from London.
ANZAC Minor IC in Persia
-
I was talking with one of my YouTube subscribers named Jeffery who suggested to me the value of an ANZAC factory in Persia… has anyone else explored this idea?
-
I haven’t explored this idea in the sense that I ever played it, but I’ve thought about it in the past and saw quite a few obstacles. So I wonder: did Jefferey suggest a strategy or scenario where this would be a good idea?
A few problems I can think of, are:
1. It takes a UK transport and Anzac inf to give Persia to Anzac in Anzac 2, and then you still need to build the complex itself. The UK would like to use its transport elsewhere, and the maneuver also weakens Egypt. It’s much easier to just march into Persia as the UK and build a British complex there.
2. The investment for the factory and for anything it produces comes out of Anzac’s not-so-deep pockets and thus weakens their homeland, so it only works when Japan either pursues a strategy that doesn’t put much pressure on Anzac (which seems suboptimal to me) or can be kept at bay by the US, which would need to go just about full Pacific to compensate for Anzac’s diminished investments in that area.
3. What will the Anzac units out of Persia do? The main tactical advantage is that they move after Italy so they can kill can openers in Russia or even in the Middle East, but that’s about it. A British factory in Persia would contribute much more to an offensive force in the area.So maybe it could work if the US goes full Pacific but otherwise I can’t really see it. But maybe I’m missing something.
-
He didn’t outline a strategy other than the need for the UK transport, but it did interest me for a couple of reasons…
Substituting ANZACs participation in the Pacific for a Middle East presence may allow the US to go full Pacific without leaving everything to Russia and the UK (which I understand is exactly what you said). However, I do feel that a UK factory in Egypt as well as an ANZAC factory in Persia would allow for some pretty formidable weapons in Africa considering the split income sources.
-
I like to put my UK complex on Persia but I can see the value of walking an ANZAC infantry to Iraq and building a complex there on turn 3. You could also fly the fighter from Queensland to Sumatra or Malaya on one turn then the Middle East on the next. You could use that time to shore up your homeland defence, achieve your N.O., and save a couple of bucks for the IC. That would allow UK to move more units toward India and eventually Russia instead of Africa. Not a bad idea.
-
Hmm…never considered it. I usually go Iraq with the IC. Easier to defend, same distance to caucasus, same SZ, same distance to India with M2 units. No bonus for Russia but … If JPN doesn’t attack early and ANZAC can get some bonuses, well maybe. I just don’t think they have enough dough.
-
I don’t think this makes much sense.
Why not go into Iraq? You can fly over some planes to support the attack. I’ve done that once or twice when the situation has suited it.
Is it using the Med TT? That has much better things to do. I guess you could us the SZ39 one and pick up the inf from Malaya, then drop it on E Persia ANZ2, taking Persia ANZ3. Seems like a waste of time and assumes that SZ37 is safe J2.
If ANZAC are doing really well (such as with a late Japanese DOW), they generally have trouble spending all their money in the one IC. Buying a second on Queensland seems a bit sub optimal to me, unless Sydney is under threat.
-
Kinda risky to leave the 2 inf on the uk transport on sz 81 at the end of Anzac1. Assuming Allies have the 2 dds from 72 and 71…that doesn’t match up well against 2 German bombers. On the other hand tha’s far from a sure thing for Axis so they may have better options for those bombers on G2. However Axis could also attack with the Italy bomber on Italy 1 against just the dd and the tpt.
In addition to concerns about the tpt surviving, some problems include 1) Uk loses out on the 2 ipcs on UK1 2) w/o taking Persia UK1, Uk can’t liberate NW Persia on UK2, which means Russia won’t be able to blitz into Iraq on R3 (this part isn’t applicable to BM of course) 3) A Persia factory is not necessarily a great option because if Germany has enough armor that could result in some extra production at a very strategic location for Axis 4) it’s awkward to set up for this move when you might change your mind when you see the G2 buy.
But IF an Anzac factory in Iraq or Persia is feasible (eg, if Germany isn’t buying alot of mech/tanks) then it could be very useful indeed. BM might make it a little more feasible.
-
Why would you bother with a transport? Why not just walk the 2 dudes over to Iraq from Egypt? You can take Persia UK1 then strafe Iraq UK2. Take Iraq ANZAC 2 and IC goes on ANZAC 3.
Although it’s worth a try I’m not convinced it’s a great idea at all. If they had more income or at least more access to income in the Middle East and Africa then they would be able to set up there and take care of the homeland as well. With their meagre earnings I see it being a problem to do both. Not only that but UK should be able to take care of that region on their own. I still think it’s worth a try to get extra boots on the ground in Eurasia.
-
It takes too long to develop this move unless ANZAC has been assigned UK-P as in your house variant. An extra factory isn’t going to make much difference since you will only be able to spend your limited ANZAC money in one area, its too little (20 when japan completely ignores you) to run 2 factories.
ANZAC cannot even defend itself from a single Japanese Fleet if it spends on anything but core units, and the carolines permits Japan to add/subtract threat from ANZAC at any time–if you run for Brazil or Persia and the long game spend you leave yourself open.
If ANZAC only built fighters, those could help so many other ways without adding risk. If it builds subs etc then Japan has to be mmore careful coming "around the corner’ of SZ 37
-
It takes too long to develop this move unless ANZAC has been assigned UK-P as in your house variant.� � � An extra factory isn’t going to make much difference since you will only be able to spend your limited ANZAC money in one area, its too little (20 when japan completely ignores you) to run 2 factories.� �
ANZAC cannot even defend itself from a single Japanese Fleet if it spends on anything but core units, and the carolines permits Japan to add/subtract threat from ANZAC at any time–if you run for Brazil or Persia and the long game spend you leave yourself open.
If ANZAC only built fighters, those could help so many other ways without adding risk.� � If it builds subs etc then Japan has to be mmore careful coming "around the corner’ of SZ 37
What about 1 INF, 1 ART, and 1 TRN?… Lots of options there for only 14 IPCs and the rest can defend Sydney with 100% American income support in the Pacific.
-
@Young:
It takes too long to develop this move unless ANZAC has been assigned UK-P as in your house variant.� � � An extra factory isn’t going to make much difference since you will only be able to spend your limited ANZAC money in one area, its too little (20 when japan completely ignores you) to run 2 factories.� �
ANZAC cannot even defend itself from a single Japanese Fleet if it spends on anything but core units, and the carolines permits Japan to add/subtract threat from ANZAC at any time–if you run for Brazil or Persia and the long game spend you leave yourself open.
If ANZAC only built fighters, those could help so many other ways without adding risk.� � If it builds subs etc then Japan has to be mmore careful coming "around the corner’ of SZ 37
What about 1 INF, 1 ART, and 1 TRN?… Lots of options there for only 14 IPCs and the rest can defend Sydney with 100% American income support in the Pacific.
I have to agree with YG here, many options for running 2 factories in my opinion. However this is strictly a reactionary plan in my opinion, as is all allied plans. For instance this would work lovely if Germ is going SeaLion and the Japs are going china and Russia that leaves Anzac the ability to hold off the Italians in the med. Certainly not a plan I would set to use from start of game but I think it is a nice one to keep in the back pocket.
-
Why need 6 capacity when you usually only have 11$?
How is the helpless transport supposed to cross the Indian ocean when in most J1 or J2 games, japan will arrive in SZ 37 and blow apart anything that remains in the vicinity? There is no where to hide
You cant take Persia until Z3. You cant build there until Z4. You cant produce until Z5.
-
ANZAC 1: 2 infantry from Egpyt board a UK transport
UK 2: UK transport moves next to Persia
ANZAC 2: infantry claim Persia
ANZAC 3: build factory
ANZAC 4: start producing a few ground units that can destroy Italian can-openers that are heading down to the oil fields.You should have a reasonable stack with a couple rounds of production that might be beneficial to slow down a march towards Egpyt. I am not advocating this strategy but could see how a few more ANZAC ground units in the Middle East could be immensely valuable. Maybe it would make sense to try if Japan is struggling against China during the first couple of rounds.
-
@Arthur:
ANZAC 1: 2 infantry from Egpyt board a UK transport
UK 2: UK transport moves next to Persia
ANZAC 2:Â infantry claim Persia
ANZAC 3: build factory
ANZAC 4: start producing a few ground units that can destroy Italian can-openers that are heading down to the oil fields.You should have a reasonable stack with a couple rounds of production that might be beneficial to slow down a march towards Egpyt. I am not advocating this strategy but could see how a few more ANZAC ground units in the Middle East could be immensely valuable. Maybe it would make sense to try if Japan is struggling against China during the first couple of rounds.
And we can all agree that the US can’t get a presence in the Middle East, and if Russia is gonna do anything outside of dying… it’s probably helping China.
-
I’ve gone into the Mid East as Russia but that’s usually a Sea Lion game - and/or a Neutral crush game.
-
I’ve tried this, but in my opinion it depends far too much on Japan cooperating. You could try it placing part of your bid as an ANZAC unit on Egypt and taking Iraq on A3 with fighters flown to Malaya/Java on J1 and India on J2, but it’s still A5 before you can produce a single unit.
I suppose it could work if you could place more than one ANZAC unit in Egypt on A1, or place an ANZAC transport adjacent to Egypt where ANZAC presently has no sea units. Both of those options violate the conventional bidding rules though.
Marsh
-
I don’t see the strategic advantage for ANZAC to factory Persia while I agree if ANZAC could start with it on turn 1, I would sing a different tune. But ANZAC cannot spare the resources to take Persia, let alone factory it, defend it against Japan as Japan will most likely be the one to take it and then while doing all of that, produce units that matter followed by keeping itself secured. Factory on Persia in early turn doesn’t work for a minor nation, I feel this idea is trying to make ANZAC play as a major power, it isn’t.
-
@Arthur:
ANZAC 1: 2 infantry from Egpyt board a UK transport
UK 2: UK transport moves next to Persia
ANZAC 2: infantry claim Persia
ANZAC 3: build factory
ANZAC 4: start producing a few ground units that can destroy Italian can-openers that are heading down to the oil fields.You should have a reasonable stack with a couple rounds of production that might be beneficial to slow down a march towards Egpyt. I am not advocating this strategy but could see how a few more ANZAC ground units in the Middle East could be immensely valuable. Maybe it would make sense to try if Japan is struggling against China during the first couple of rounds.
I agree with a lot of what ABH is saying. I think there is some real potential with this move due to the fact that it can neutralize the Italian can opener. I would argue that it would be better for Anzac to take Iraq with the help of UK and UK taking Persia.
Either way it is done I believe that there is a strong argument to be made for this move. Due to the turn order you can easily argue that any UPC spent by Anzac in the ME is worth more than a UPC spent by UK.
-
In my opinion, it’s much better to expand your income however you can with Anzac (while making it very costly for the Japanese to take your capital) and make use of the manufacturing capacity that you do have at the beginning. If you consistently earn 20 IPC or so, add to your 3 starting fighters (1 or two fighters a turn, + whatever is needed at the time). They can be a real pain for the Japanese as they can do many things during the game:
- Defend Australia
- Counter-attack a landing, along with mechanized units
- Reinforce US fleet by landing on carrier, or Islands that have an air base
- Take small battles with the Japanese Navy, preserving strength of US navy (Anzac submarines are great also)
- Ensure that the Japanese have to lose a transport when they retake Island (regardless of where the US fleet is and blockers that they employ). That is, because of the strike ability of that air force, the Japanese don’t have enough force to defend the transports without getting too much of their fleet out of position.
- Reinforce an island, making it very costly for Japanese to retake it
- Defend India/Shan State, Burma, etc.
8 ) Strafe Japanese land units in China, Russia, etc.
These planes can also eventually help defend Moscow, the Middle East or Egypt.
-
Keeping a couple Anzac fighters in Egypt can clear Italian blockers in the med as well.
Anzac fighters (as with UK fighters and US Bombers) are key units in the game.