Oh turkey smurkey. How would that allow ger to send tanks to africa? Tanks would have to be shipped or go through caucasus. I see no use in spain either! 8-)
Thanks for all of the examples. I guess I might have to try it every now and then. Altho I do see viable options in taking a neutral now, it doesn’t necessarily seem like it comes up every game… only when the opportunity presents itself.
Oh turkey smurkey. How would that allow ger to send tanks to africa? Tanks would have to be shipped or go through caucasus. I see no use in spain either!
Look my good chap of course you would need to clear the Caucasus. that goes without saying but it allows Germany a free shipment to africa so as not to waste planes for that and knowing you only have one armor unit. plus it allows you to tetake caucasus w/o having to land troops.
Spain is a very old concept and it works. It forces the germans to attack all the infantry instead of invading france yourself against all those twos on defense. What make that not viable?
OK I’ve been coming on too strong I think. I’ll try to soften it a bit.
IL- when playing good players, you will not be rolling tanks through the caucasus on the way to africa. And certainly not early on!! And if you did, why not go through persia instead of turkey? I think taking spain sucks too, but I don’t really have an argument handy. I’ll put it to you bluntly…taking turkey by ger is ludicrous against very good players.
why not go through persia instead of turkey?
its a first turn thing only. You do it in NCM… persia is occupied by G1. I used to do it back under the CD game by hasblo
Well I personally don’t get the thing with Turkey either. Is the proposed move UKR-CAU-TUR? I can’t understand how a Russian player would ever leave a situation with which Germany could execute that move. Russia will either attack UKR, strafe it (quite possibly eliminating all armor), or at very least not leave CAU undefended, therefore not allowing Germany to blitz through it. Am I completely misunderstanding?
NO your not. The idea works only is specific situations:
thats it. its the only time to consider such a plan. lets keep the idea in context. Now the spain idea is much more common in games.
it does not matter whether the player is good or poor it can work against either depending on the correct circumstances.
I think you need to scrap that turkey idea son!! :-D
I’m still not seeing it. I get that theoretically there is a use for turkey in avoiding going through Persia, but I just can’t see how that could practically be of any use through the course of a game, even given the bizarre circumstances you describe. Could you please list the exact move that is in question, and possibly the followup move(s) on the next turn?
I agree. It’s not like that area of the world is overly defended in most circumstances, ESPECIALLY around G1-G3!
Spain, on the other hand, is much better. It allows USA and UK to dump infantry into undefended land. Best is if UK takes it so USA and USSR can dump fighters into it before Germany can go, thus making it a real B*TCH to take for the Germans and allowing the allies to start moving armored and infantry units in, instead of cannon-foddering France in the hopes of winning a war of attrician against the Germans.
Here’s a nifty trick using neutrals….
In my old group there arose the opinion that Brazil was somehow of value to the Japanese and that it could not be defended because it is on an island more or less. Often the Japanese moving into Argentina or Chile would force the US to build new and unnecessary transports in EUSSZ in order to counter such an action, and this itself was much of the point of the move because from Argentina Japan can hit Austrailia, Nz, or even Africa depending on where in Argentina they are. My counter to any potential Brazil move is actually quite simple which is move armor into Panama and violate Columbia. It is true that if the 2arm must attack 2inf the US will still lose more Ipcs than they kill and protect but the benefit of this is that 2arm in Panama is such a noncomittal that should the Japanese try to use Argentina as a feint before going to Africa or Austrailia they will find they have only wasted time. Should they committ to it they will lose 14ipcs of units(because I will try to kill with air the boat) while I should lose only 8ipcs of my own units(-3 Brazil and -5 for 1 tank). This is basically the cheapest, easiest way to defend Brazil, and at the same time should Japan decide its not worth it those tanks can easily slide back into the supply chain in WUS towards Europe without losing much time.
Because of this I would say avoid going for Brazil as the Axis since it should cost you more to possess it than it will for the US.
The problem with a Brazil bid by Japan is it pulls the Japanese fleet out of position.
Personally, I like keeping those BBs and AC in the northern pacific, not out near S. America. Just the thought of 2 fighters, 2 bbs (defending at 4) and an AC defending at 3 puts chills down the American player when s/he has to contemplate making a navy for the Pacific.
You don;t send Capital Ships on the Brazil run… only a lone TRN… Same as you do for the South Africa run…
Still cost prohibitive, unless you can land and run for a while…
@ncscswitch:
You don;t send Capital Ships on the Brazil run… only a lone TRN… Same as you do for the South Africa run…
Still cost prohibitive, unless you can land and run for a while…
I don’t exactly send trannies anywhere without capital ship support if I can help it! And since, at the moment of a Brazil run, the US fleet is non-existant, I’d probably send my capital ship with the tranny. Actually, since the US BB and Tran are probably by Mexico, I’d send the AC with the tranny, the fighters and BBs to Mexico to kill the US fleet. (I’m assuming that US moved their fighters in USA 1 and didn’t build more.)
The Brazil Run is attempted when the Pacific is vacant of US ships (they are eitehr sunk, or went to the Atlantic).
It is an annoyance move for Japan to execute in a KGF game.
@ncscswitch:
The Brazil Run is attempted when the Pacific is vacant of US ships (they are eitehr sunk, or went to the Atlantic).
It is an annoyance move for Japan to execute in a KGF game.
Problem then is I have to dedicate a transport and 2 infantry (14 IPCs) on a 6 round mission instead of shuffling infantry into Asia. 6 rounds = 12 infantry potentially lost to teh Russian campaign.
Jennifer, do you bother to take Australia and New Zealand as Japan, then?
If so, you need to dedicate a transport and at least one infantry to that cause already, before even considering Brazil. The infantry that you use there are usually pulled from an island that is not reachable within 1 turn to get to Asia anyway, so it’s misleading to count the cost of that infantry in your analysis. Therefore the total expenditure is 8 IPCs (the transport) to gain 3 IPCs of income for sure (AUS and NZE) and either 3 IPCs of income (Brazil) for a turn or two before the US retakes it, or at minimum the ability to distract the US from its purely atlantic campaign and the possibility of diverting to Madagascar (1 IPC which can theoretically be taken in the same turn Brazil would have). Once you take NZE, heading east to Brazil/Madagascar is probably the next best choice unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
If you DON’T take AUS/NZE, I have to ask why not? You are giving the UK 3 free IPCs per turn and costing the Axis 3 => net effect of 6 IPCs difference. Sure it requires the initial 8 IPC investment of the transport but that pays off in two turns easily. It’s especially potent if you are trying to threaten M84, since those are much needed IPCs that can swing the balance in your favor. Add to that the above possibilities of what to do with that transport afterwards and you can see it’s definitely not a wasted effort.
Actually, no, I don’t. I usually focus primarily on Moscow and leave the islands be. After all, it would be much more efficient to take Hawaii then Aus/NZE or Brazil and I never take that either…not unless America’s being a jerk and building navy, then I use it as an air base.
She brings up a good point…the best way to get the US out of a naval buildup is to go heavy against Russia. One of my favorite techniques is to build infantry for the first 4 turns while building factories, NO transports, then switch on turn 5 to all armor production for a Dethstryke around turn 8. If the US is messing with a navy in the Pacific then it should take them until about then to really get going. Ultimately the loss of Borneo, New Guinea, Okinawa, and even the East Indies won’t matter that much but Moscow always will and certainly if it is taken by the Japanese.
I DID say it was cost-prohibitive :-P
Although, against a non-master class opponent, the Brazil strike can be VERY beneficial.
Also, it does not take 6 moves, even starting from Japan. 2 moves take Panama. Then sail through, grab West Indies on turn 3, Brazil on 4.
Or, from New Zealand only 2 more to Brazil, then one to land in western Africa…
