@ncscswitch:
I think it is safe to assume that the IC, IF it is built, should be built after the SZ5 fleet is toast and US has already established a nice TRN network.
However, I would not be inclined to let Norway in German hands that long, which means either UK will take it, ot US has already sent a minimum of 1 TRN north so that they can take Norway early. And that reduces teh strength of intial Allied counters in Africa, and leaves any Allied fleet in SZ12 a bit mroe vulnerable.
I’d agree. The IC shouldn’t replace your transport fleet, it should compliment it. Maybe getting 6 transports instead of 8 transports and an IC or 8 transports instead of 10 transports and an IC is the route to go.
And yes, it’s nice for England to have as well, but really, England only needs 18 IPCs to fill 3 transports. England + Canada is 12 IPC right there. Most smart Jap players won’t hit Australia or New Zealand until later in the game, that’s 4 more to 16 IPC and Madagascar is also usually untouched for a long time. So England’s got 17 of 18 IPCs already, usually. Add that to as yet onconquered middle east and Africa and you’ve exceeded the 18 IPCs needed to fill 3 transports. (4 transports is a waste, IMHO. England can only build 8 units, and I want airpower as well as land power.) And yes, 6 infantry < 3 Infantry 3 Artillery < 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor I know that. I’m stating the MINIMUM not the OPTIMUM.
Meanwhile, America with +2 North Africa and +3 Norway is at 43 IPC a round, making up for China/Sinkiang’s loss. 5 Infantry, 5 Artillery, and savings for more ships or aircraft.
Why do I like American/Russia as my sledge hammers with British reinforcements?
A) They work back to back.
B) America just has the shear power of assets every round. (28 IPC just for the USA.)
C) England makes such a nice between attack force that can mobilize to assist Russian stacks or America stacks before Japan can go.
Well put Jen. I play tomorrow, if I get the US, we’ll see how it goes.
I’ll just add my ignorant two cents’ worth…
This question goes to what I think is the heart of the game - logistics. The Allies start the game with an economic advantage (greater production) while the axis have the logistical advantage: they build their troops right close to the action. This means that the Allies economic advantage is a bit of an illusion - they cannot actually build more, at least in terms of fighting units. To get 8 IPCs of fight to Russia’s doorstep, Germany only spends 8 IPCs. The US and UK have to spend 16 IPCs to deliver the same fight - the armor, the infantry, and a transport to carry them.
(Actually, that’s why I think Russia is a bit under-rated. Sure, the production sucks, but what production there is is right on the front, and can be immediately used where it is needed.)
So the heart of the game then as I see it is whether the Allies can efficiently overcome their logistical disadvantage in order to realize the benefit of their economic advantage. A Norway IC is one solution to that, but thinking about it, I don’t think I like it. It delivers units to the front more quickly than any other solution once it is built. But it takes time to capture Norway and also time to build the IC. It also lets Germany know where the attack will be coming from, and as Sun Tzu says, deception is the key to all warfare. That said, if Norway could produce more than 3 units, I might think about it more.
I’ve only played about five games, but I think this is why I won and why I have seen people lose as the Allies: quite simply, they fail to get their IPCs delivered to Germany’s doorstep. They build units that they won’t have the transports to move. Or they build enough transports, but fail to protect them from attack. Or they build extra transports that won’t have anything to carry the next round. Any of these result in wasted IPCs sitting around on Great Britain (or in the water) while German tanks roll happily across Africa and Russia.
So I think the key to the game is simply planning carefully how to get (or prevent) Allied IPCs flowing into Europe (or Japan) as efficiently as possible, and thereby realizing as much as possible the economic advantage. This means getting control of the sea while preparing an invasion fleet that wastes no IPCs. The Axis meanwhile have to leverage their logistical advantage to prevent the Allies from setting up an efficient delivery system.
Another thought I’ve had for getting Allied IPCs across is in the form of fighters. They can arrive to help defend Russia in one turn, and avoiding the sea means that Germany’s navy is all a complete waste. The problem though is that they can’t support Russian offensives, and are too expensive to use to attack on their own. But they might be a good interim idea while the shipping gets set up?
I’ve done a lot of British RAF strategies and it always comes down to the fact that they just don’t have any staying power. Lots of British fighters tie up Russian troops and prevent them from advancing lest the British fighters are left exposed to German and Japanese attacks. Meanwhile, America takes 4-5 rounds to come up to full speed anyway.
long story short….the cost of an IC in norway does not outweigh the benefits…it’s just not a logical move… when you think about it, you build the IC…you can’t use it until next turn…then germany will take it…then you might take it back w/ UK or US…but then ur still not even able to use it just yet…thats 15IPC’s that arent even being used…meanwhile…u could build 1transport 1inf 1 art…thats a loaded tranny… that could be used to invade W Europe…
that would be like japan building an IC on one of it’s islands…just useless. especially since it’s right in the warzone…
german bombers could pound the crap outa it
German infantry + armour + Luftwaffe could re-take it every turn if they truley wanted too…but it would cost them infantry going to russia…
only way an IC would be a good idea would be if the baltic fleet is destroyed…and karelia is in safe allied hands…then it makes more sense since germany can’t re-take it w/o going through karelia…n by then u have 3 tanks + w/e u put there in the first place.
the US has alot of money to throw at the Axis…but i think i speak for everyone when i say that it could be much better spend. a efficient and effective tranny system would be much more to the Allies liking. like mentioned in a previous message, it gives the US the ability to adapt to what Germany is showing. you can go for W Europe… or E europe(only when baltic fleet is destroyed) S Europe or Africa…with an IC in norway, your coming from norway…theres no suprise to it.
IC in norway isn’t as useful as tranny’s
Feds10
It is however a more efficient method of delivering specifically armor to specifically the Eastern Front, if that’s your ambition.
The trouble is that Germany then knows specifically it will be facing tanks from Norway, and can respond to the Allied threat more efficiently with that knowledge.
It could be a good idea in the right circumstances. But I think those circumstances are generally once the Allies have a healthy advantage, such as pumping out extra tanks faster for the final push.
Feds 10:
If you are building an IC in Norway when Germany even has a remote chance to take it before you can use it, then you are building it WAY too early.
The IC in Norway is a frosting on the cake move for the allies, not a replacement for the transportation system. What it does is jump start America’s move towards Japan by freeing up 2 to 4 transports from the shuck shuck without reducing the American flow of troops to E. Europe/Germany.
true…but it’s just pointless…tranny’s are far better in my opinion. and like mentioned by frood, it shows Germany where your coming from. tranny’s give you some ability to adjust to what you see from germany.
only way it would make sense is if the allies already have complete control of the seas…and is putting some serious pressure on germany…other then that i can’t agree with an IC in norway
Feds10
jen, if your interested in playing a game id be more then happy to :-) i want the Axis however cuz i’m not that strong of an allies player yet.
Feds 10
Sure Feds.
You registered with Flames of Europe or DAAK or AAMC? If so, we can start the game there and post the results here for all to see. My registered name on all 3 is Jennifer.
If not, do you want a bid for Axis or just want to take them as is?
i’m AAMC….dogtag is ahttr_86…i don’t know how to use the dicey’s too well…but i’m up for posting results on the website lol
8-)
Feds 10
Started a thread in the games in progress board, Fed.
Of course only AMERICA should be allowed to take Norway. America’s navy in the Baltic…IC on Norway…building one battleship every turn until it has 13 bombarding Berlin and bringing in one man on a transport. This is the guaranteed failsafe way for Allies to win.
If you happen to play with National Advantages, a US Norway IC is a great way to get tanks to Russia to be converted by Lend-Lease without tying up your fleet.
Otherwise, leave Norway to the Brits…they usually need the money.
I’m surprised by the number of people commenting on the possibility of Germany bombing the IC. If America brings an AA over, is Germany going to risk a 15 IPC bomber on a 3 IPC raid? Seems like a bad risk when German bombers are needed to threaten the Allied fleet.
I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.
UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.
Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.
I used to agree with you, Perry. I’ve since changed my mind.
I believe that England can find it most beneficial to have Norway since England is short of cash for the first few rounds and Norway is generally a freebie for them.
However, there is a valid point of America taking it. Of course, buying battleships every round for a German attack does not strike me as overly efficient. Perhaps Combined Arms + Destroyers would work better. But honestly, 10 Units from W. USA + 3 Units in Norway (even if it is all infantry) is eventually going to overwhelm the Germans.
I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.
Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.
I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.
As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.
