US IC in Norway?

Utz, the nice thing about KGF in Revised is it can be deployed flexibly.  Some opponents will stack Western and won’t allow the Western stack tactics I’m talking about, forcing a long game.

The conventional winning strategy for Allies against an expert level Axis is UK shucks to Arch/4, USA shucks to Africa/12.  Russia first focuses on dead-zoning Karelia by getting as many units to Western Russia as it can, then it gets men to Persia in conjunction with UK air/armor that landed in Arch.  From there, the Americans reinforce Persia.  Hold Persia and Allies can win the economic war.

If Axis is skilled, this makes for a long game.  If at all possible, it’s nice to shake things up with more aggressive strategies, and that’s where mass landings on Western along with aggressive Russian attacks come in.  From SZ 4 or SZ 12, the Allies can hit Western, so there’s a lot of room for flexibility.

Re USA1 ACs, it’s not strictly necessary to buy one if UK will land in 12, but it can be useful if UK will drop stuff in Europe immediately.

Island hopping is great, but its not critical.  Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great.  This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers.  They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults.  I will have no less than 2.  I then will support my fleet with destroyers.  I try to build 2 for every carrier.  If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment.  This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically.  Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower.  Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines.  If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics.  Your maximizing your money and strength.  Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry.  You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault.  the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition.  But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up.  Battle should be over without losing anything.  Your fighters land for fleet defense.  Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea.  Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.

@bigchris:

glad to see someone putting that idea to good use!  i’ve also found that 5 INF, 2 ARM, 1 ART = 8 units for 29 IPCs is more effective than 4 INF, 4 ART = 8 units for 28 IPCs (if you can get the extra $).

Instead of art I try to buy as much armor as I can when possible.

I also like the allied “blitz” idea to take Ger as fast as possible within 8-9 turns. Recently I’ve been experimenting using Soviet to become part of the attack. Let’s say, in the example as described over, that Ger has 50 inf. + tanks and fighters and USA and UK have no chance of taking it. With 8 inf, 8 art and 2 fighters from Soviet it’s actually possible to take Germany!

there’s a simple reason not to put an IC in brazil.

If britian doesn’t royally screw up, they should build the SA IC, and coupling that with the fact that it would take a few turns for both u and germany to actually engage, the IPC’s you spent on that factory and any units you built there would be better off used to take the fight into Europe or to combat Japan in the pacific and keeping them off US soil.

All in all, it’s Britian’s job to build the units in Africa, while the US just throws attacks at the Med fleet and any German land units on the continent. The US shouldn’t be responsible for reinforcing africa via Brazil.

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

If i build an IC in a captured territory, and I lose that territory, and another ally takes it over, its now their IC.

Thats not even a question, I just feel its the answer to one of the next ones to be asked.

My approach with Japan the two games I’ve played has been to build IC in India and FIC, build Arm there, and build TRNs also to keep a steady flow of Inf from Japan to Persia. That puts a lot of pressure on Cau to allow either Germany or Japan to take it. Once you have a big Axis presence in Cau, that Sink IC becomes less valuable to the Allies.

In other words, go around it - to the south. Germany can take Cau a lot sooner if Japan is in a position to immediately reinforce with a bunch of stuff.

My tourney game I also faced Russian defence (but no IC) and was also not able to take Sink / Yakut until J5 or so, but still there was enough money that I had 2 ICs and 7 TRNs running. I think Japan’s priorities should be building TRNs, taking Australia / New Zealand / India ASAP (J3) and picking up all the island Inf. Japan’s TRNs practically pay for themselves because of the island Inf supply, and because they increase the value of your forces by moving them to the front much faster.

Haven’t actually faced that American IC in Sink though.

In my two recent games however Russia has kept nothing in the East anyway. I guess you would still have to build more TRN anyway. Maybe the EI IC is a better build later on.