Does Germany ever build ICs?

japanesse IC in brazikl i8s devestating, US ic in Norway is evil

Actually did buy ic´s for japan in folowing places in one game (i won)

IC: Fic, manchuria, sinkiang, kwangtung, china.

The reason they are rated low, for me, is as follows:

1)  Submarines are expensive
2)  Submarines die to fighters without risk to the fighters
3)  Submarines purchased take 4 full turns to break even (odds?)
4)  The two submarines in SZ 5 die in every game I’ve ever seen.  It’s just a debate over when, not if they die.
5)  Germany has no business buying up lots of submarines.
6)  America is relatively unaffected by U-Boats.  Sure, they have less money, but honestly, -3 IPC from 42 IPC is not that much.

Those are ranked in order of importance to me.

That said, if you get them as a random bonus, it isn’t horrible.  Germany, of course, has no worthless advantages.

I think we need to look at the England complex in a different light.

If England gets a FREE complex, where should they put it? (Prior to Russia 1.)

Why?  Because that’s the majority of complexes England gets.  Not many people are buying Complexes for England until much later in the game when they can put them up in W. Europe or Norway. :P

So, to me the choices are:

And that’s pretty much the order i would put them in.  Unless there are some neat things going on with America and Russia that can help reinforce India faster.  Then it might change.

I like E. Canada over Australia because you can invest in a 5th & 6th Transport (something some of you want to do ANYWAY) with England and be landing 10 troops a round in Asia. 2 From E. Canada to England. 10 From England to North Europe.

@rjclayton:

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

Yeah, come to think of it, those are 2 IPC territories.  I wasn’t paying attention.

However, I do not think that Russia TRADES Novo or Kazakh for long.  Japanese forces build up pretty fast; once Novosibirsk falls, I don’t see Russia reclaiming it more than once or perhaps twice.  (My guess is that by the time Novosibirsk falls, one of two will be true; either Russia will still be holding Germany at West Russia, so won’t have enough to counterattack a moderately held Novosibirsk (note that if Russia DID have a lot in Russia instead of West Russia, I don’t think Japan would commit to Novosibirsk).  OR, Russia will be holed up in Moscow, while Japan builds up.

Also, most of what I’ve been writing recently in this thread has been OT.

tee heez.

@Jennifer:

In that case they are +4 IPC for Caucasus that turn.  However, they are not in an tactical advantage and Russia has suffered no loss for loosing it.

Net:  Russia Tactical Advantage with larger then normal stack in W. Russ.  IPC Gain +2 (WR)
Net:  Germany at no advantage, IPC gain of 4 in Cauc, IPC loss of 2 WR, net 2 IPC gain, tactical disadvantage due to larger then normal stack in WRuss.

The way I see it, Germany gains +4 IPC from the territory, and +1 IPC from the 1/3 chance of killing a unit with minimum value 3 IPC (one infantry), so net +5 IPC for investment of +3 IPC.  Germany also benefits from tying down the UK bomber for that turn, which is not trivial; a UK bomber can do a lot of damage to valuable naval units.

The Allies gain a tactical advantage from killing a forward placed German infantry, as well as the fact that the UK, not Russia, depleted Germany’s forces, which in turn allows Russia’s forces to mass and therefore be more efficient.

Russia gains nothing by holding West Russia because I believe Russia should hold West Russia until Germany has heavily massed at Ukraine.  That is, Russia should probably be holding West Russia anyways.

@newpaintbrush:

@Jennifer:

How do you plan to invade England when they have 2 fighters, 2, armor, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 bombers + 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 artillery, 1 armor from America on it?

Keep in mind you have maybe 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 transports and 1 battleship to use on Germany 2 and that’s making some assumptions that you did not loose any of those assets prior to your second turn and that you landed all those aircraft in France somehow knowing that England was going to buy a bomber and an IC instead of something else.

How is it that every time I propose a move, that the Allies mysteriously pop up with these shadow forces in the ideal place?  That’s why I really dislike Jennifer’s responses.  Somehow the Allies always watched to see what Germany would do, and did something that would otherwise be almost retarded to counter Germany’s response.  But in that case, Germany can just have done the other thing.

Hmm, possibly because you keep changing what Germany does to fit the actions of England who moves after Germany???

However, I’ve never changed my English strategy.  They always end up with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 infantry, armor and artillery + America can land more if Germany appears to be setting up Sea Lion.

Not my fault you’re not capable of seeing the short falls in your own plans.  I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not.  You need to pay closer attention to details that are posted instead of assuming.

I presume you assumed England sent her bomber to Egypt, retook Egypt with the SZ 35/India equipment, landed troops in Algeria, leaving their capital with only a few infantry to defend it, huh?  Because, unless that’s exactly what England does, Germany hasn’t a chance in hell of taking it on G2 and everyone on the board knows it.

forget offensive though, trying to assault a country with 35 2’s can be quite the pain in the butt. and thats just the frontline :P

Yes, you are entirely correct.