Australian IC ?

Not much sense to Germany or Russia building ICs in Revised.  Germany already starts with the ability to make 16 units a turn–that’s all you need.  The only interesting places I’ve seen Germany place an IC are Western Europe (for naval strats) and Ukraine (to help aggressive stack there).  And I’d argue stacking Ukraine is better achieved by simply buying more land units and moving em out.

ICs are expensive enough as it is–no need to buy em w/o reason.

@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.

I think UK needs it the most since it has the job of attacking the Germans first. UK’s IPCs are going downhill rapidly, and it can’t mount much of an offensive on ~24 IPC income.

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.

To bad I missed the party, I’d drink to that.  :-D

-LT04

@General_D.Fox:

Why not just do a crossword instead?  No luck involved there, just yeer brain!!!

“brain”?!

Don’t be usin those four letter words up in heah!

@Cobert:

So the best way to counter the Australia IC is to b**** out?

Gotcha.

No really though, I understand.  Thats kind of a good strategy for any nation though, just a bit hard to execute because Japan is spread out through islands.

Mm hm.

Australia is an awesome naval base that gives the Allies a great deal of freedom in the Pacific.  But either US or the UK must come to the fight with some naval units.  While they build naval units, Japan and Germany press the attack on Russia.

Japan’s position degrades very quickly after Australia gets going, but it is almost impossible for the Allies to capture Japan itself.  Far before Japan is in any real danger (with a stack of infantry and fighters on it), Germany and Japan should be able to make Russia fall.  From that point, it’s really Japan and Germany vs. UK and US.  In a 9 VC game, that means that Germany and Japan together have a deathgrip on 8 VCs (all in Europe and mainland Asia, probably including India, Karelia, and Moscow), but have probably lost the Phillipine Islands.

Since Japan cannot be broken, and Germany cannot be broken, the victory should go to the Axis, with a navy and air force fueled by Russian IPCs, and a positional advantage that allows Germany to threaten London itself as well as threatening Africa and Brazil with only minimal IPCs invested.

Of course, the Allies are not locked into defending Australia, but any IPCs spent there are IPCs not used elsewhere in those important early turns.

An IC in Anglo Egypt is the only one that makes sense, in my opinion. Africa is worth 12 IPCs per turn. If Germany, by buying an IPC in Africa, can hold Africa for an additional two turns, the benefits outweigh the cost, so it’s a good choice.