USA into the Middle East

There is one more route…have considered using it…but… (played only … only …if you know Japanese player will do a J4)

Hawaii TR (+2inf) to Queensland US1
To Java on US2
To India on US3
to Persia on US4

MH

@MeinHerr:

There is one more route…have considered using it…but… (played only … only …if you know Japanese player will do a J4)

Hawaii TR (+2inf) to Queensland US1
To Java on US2
To India on US3
to Persia on US4

MH

Less likely path to occur that way.

Another scenario would be in the event of a J1 attack.

Drop a tank in w. Africa. The tank could reach Iraq on Round 4. You send planes/bombers to catch up. A US factory on Iraq is a huge game changer.

This is the interesting thing about playing the U.S.: there are so many things you can do, but will any of your actions save your Allies?

Getting into the Middle East is probably not worth it in my opinion unless you can build a factory there.  The real problem is, of course, simply getting there.  While you are wasting time and IPCs trying to send a minor force to a relatively well-guarded Allied stronghold, is Moscow or London, or Calcutta and Sydney going to fall?  Maybe a level of deceit is necessary to ensure that the Axis are still preparing to see you in France and the Philippines.

There is another strategy that a lot of people are talking about called “Bright Skies” in which the Americans send a bunch of bombers to Russia and surrounding areas.  Maybe a Middle East landing combined with thus could result in a very interesting, formadable American position?

As I see it, the absolute best the US could do is 1 Armor + 1 INF from Eastern/Central US and 2 INF from Hawaii into Persia on US4, and that’s assuming the European Axis declare war on the US in Round 1. There are just so many potential obstacles there: the presence of Axis warships or aircraft in the Med, U-boats remaining in the Atlantic, Japanese movements in the South Pacific.

In terms of distance from the US, Persia is almost the most remote territory on the board. With that in mind, I think the best way America can help her allies - the best way to defend Cairo/India - is to force the Axis to defend elsewhere. Trite though it may be, “the best defense is a good offense” applies here. American landings in Norway or Southern France, for example, can occur much faster than a Persian Expeditionary Force, draw Axis attention away from Cairo and potentially aid the Soviets.

@Charles:

This is the interesting thing about playing the U.S.: there are so many things you can do, but will any of your actions save your Allies?

Getting into the Middle East is probably not worth it in my opinion unless you can build a factory there.  The real problem is, of course, simply getting there.  While you are wasting time and IPCs trying to send a minor force to a relatively well-guarded Allied stronghold, is Moscow or London, or Calcutta and Sydney going to fall?  Maybe a level of deceit is necessary to ensure that the Axis are still preparing to see you in France and the Philippines.

There is another strategy that a lot of people are talking about called “Bright Skies” in which the Americans send a bunch of bombers to Russia and surrounding areas.  Maybe a Middle East landing combined with thus could result in a very interesting, formadable American position?

Good points. The way I look at however, is that it only really costs 12 IPCs for a mIC and a few planes that you’d purchase anyways. I don’t see how that could result in not helping Calcutta or Moscow. From there the US could send stuff either direction.

The cost of the 12 IPCs for a factory in Iraq plus planes that you could use otherwise could result in Moscow or Calcutta falling.

It isn’t just the 12IPC cost though. There’s also the cost of leaving Persia/Iraq neutral for a number of turns while the USA are getting there. Also the cost of having a mixed nation force in the area. If you’re linking up with forces in/from India, there’s a big difference on attack between the multi national force and the all-UK force, which is important if you can/need to reclaim India.

UK do have enough money to support the mid east, just not enough left over to do much else. So the real question, the “why” question, becomes what else would you do with the freed up UK money? If it’s landing on France, USA can do that much better.

You get similar problems if ANZAC takes Iraq, which makes much more sense to me. It just doesn’t help the allies that much. I did it a few months ago as ANZAC but only because the Italians unwisely (IMO) took Iraq via Syria.

USA can afford to buy 3 tanks per turn or 3 fighters to go to Moscow which saves money and valuable purchases for the UK.

The soonest Iraq can be captured is turn 4; leaving it neutral that long does have consequences. I understand that point. However, I’d rather Iraq be US controlled than Anzac as it’s not for sure that they could afford to build a mIC and 3 units per turn.

With the freed up money the UK could really build enough units to save India or move north because the US could be landing fighters on Moscow. The UK may have to land some in the beginning. But situation dictates of course what the UK does with the money that they’re not forced to spend on 10-12 fighters to save Moscow. You do what makes sense. If the US is building up for a landing than the UK buys fighters on London to add to the landing. If the US is going KJF, then maybe you mostly continue to beef up the middle east.

I’ve seen the US capture Iraq before. It was the game changer that won that game for the allies.

I’d only consider trying to give Iraq to the US on round 4 is in the event of a J1 atrack. Otherwise the time is too long. Of course in this situation most of the US effort will probably focus on business as usual. And if Moscow doesn’t hold or Japan gets an early capture of India and the money islands, than its not because of 1 tank and a few planes that went to the middle east.

Iraq captured on turn 4 with units produced on turn 6 is a long time which means of course the usual goals have to occur. I get that.

You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

From each direction, if everything is ideal, you can reach Iraq on US4, build mIC on US5, produce your first tanks/fighters US6, and so first U.S. reinforcements land in Moscow or Calcutta on US7, just in time for G8 or J8 attacks?

way too late to do any good in most games.

I’m for it, I suppose, as a side mission to a U.S. Mediterranean push, perhaps, but not sure its worthwhile in any other scenario.

@simon33:

You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

US does not send a transport to get Iraq. Only and only if a J1 attack occurs than the US can land a fast mover in west Africa. It then drives into Iraq on turn 4. That is probably the quickest way.

@simon33:

You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

Who said the US couldn’t also go for Norway as well. Sometimes the US captures Korea and builds a mIC there yet still manages to stick a landing on Normandy or Norway. Iraq is no different, just in a very important part of the board.

@Ichabod:

@simon33:

You mean UK proceeds as normal but USA additionally puts an IC on Iraq? That could work actually. Although there is no real likely way of getting that transport through the med with only one cruiser to defend it.

I would still question if this is a better idea that USA going after Norway early and/or France later.

US does not send a transport to get Iraq. Only and only if a J1 attack occurs than the US can land a fast mover in west Africa. It then drives into Iraq on turn 4. That is probably the quickest way.

Going that way, on US3 you reach Tobruk, US4, Egypt, US5 Iraq.

Although weddingsinger has pointed out the major problem with the plan. It just arrives too late to achieve much. Better to give UK 2IPC/turn which they might be able to do something productive with.

Simon, I’m speaking from actual game experience having played a game against Gen Cre who gave Iraq to the US on turn 4. He’s a great allies player and is one of the contributors to BM3.

You don’t drive across north Africa that takes an extra turn longer. Look at the map please.

West Africa turn 1 (land a tank or a mech)
French Equatorial Africa turn 2
Egypt turn 3
Iraq turn 4

Bombers or regular planes catch up. In our game Gen Cre took the risk of strafing Iraq by the UK to soften it up; whch entails other risks but it worked out perfect for hin cause there was only 1 infantry remaing.

@Ichabod:

Simon, I�m speaking from actual game experience having played a game against Gen Cre who gave Iraq to the US on turn 4. He�s a great allies player and is one of the contributors to BM3.

You don�t drive across north Africa that takes an extra turn longer. Look at the map please.

West Africa turn 1 (land a tank or a mech)
French Equatorial Africa turn 2
Egypt turn 3
Iraq turn 4

Bombers or regular planes catch up. In our game Gen Cre took the risk of strafing Iraq by the UK to soften it up; whch entails other risks but it worked out perfect for hin cause there was only 1 infantry remaing.

If you are gonna get US units fast to the middle east this is the way to go, shuttle fast movers (and inf) to french west africa, then you can have the US armor get to Iraq US4. Build factroy USA 5 and deploy first units USA 6. The problem is that in most cases Germany can start driving south on G7 or G8 making the factory very vulnerable. But it is possible if you have a plan and that plan must involve stopping germany from going south.

I think the biggest merits for USA troups in the middle east is to can open for the british. Sometimes the british get a good size stack that may treaten Germany or Italy stack, but if USA can can open,it is sometimes enough to discourage Germany to go south, but it also allowes the british to land planes there on the newly captured USA areas, making a Germany counter hopefully impossible

Ok. You mean French West Africa. Seems you can save a turn that way.

But again the problem is germany capturing the factory, something you definitely need to worry about