And I will repeat my thoughts for discussion here.
When the Axis achieves the territory gains that they start with in '42 in '41 it is about round 3 or 4. The Axis have much more units on the board especially at the front in '42 than they do in the same time frame in a '41 scenario (round 3 or 4). Yes the Allies start with a few more units scattered around the world but I also think by round 3 or 4 in '41 game they ca nhave produced more.
Muschamp is from Gainesville, played at Georgia, spent some time at Valdosta State University, which is close to Gainesville in Georgia, and was the Defensive coach at Auburn before Texas snagged him. He has plenty of time in the SEC region so recruiting shouldn’t be a problem. It remains to be seen how patient Florida fans are with him. A lot of the younger Florida fans seem to take winning for granted and think Florida has and all ways will be a power, which is just not the case.
I just don’t see how the Golden Miami deal is going to work out. Recruitment is tough in the state of Florida and I am not sure if without any prior connections Golden can get it done. I thought Miami pulled the trigger on Shannon too quickly myself.
The FIC IC is OK if the US goes 100% Pacific. As a matter of fact I think it is one of the best IC positions in this case. It is harder to lose than any of the island positions. Both of the seazones it serves may also give a safe build spot close to the action. Think putting planes on carriers to maximize those two slots. Also as axis_roll pointed to the FIC IC does not require any naval servicing. If it is not needed for ships it can be producing ground units for South West Asia. The Allies are thin here even with the cluster they start with in India, it will not take many troops to decide this area. This opens up the possibility of an IC in India and these can support themselves.
I do think that akreider2 is correct in that if the US does go 100% Pacific (keep in mind this is how I play Allies) that Japan does need to limit its IC building. I know as the US I love to see a Japanese IC go down in E. Indies on round 2. This is a fixed point that the Japanese navy will have to defend. While FIC is also a fixed point, it can be relived by land, and is more interior, so this reduces its drawbacks in a US PTO game. I think the Key to surviving these as Japan is to avoid having to defend multiple areas that one can not afford to lose. While the islands do matter for IPCs and NOs they can be left for a turn or two in enemy possession if the situation requires it. With an IC at that location it becomes a different consideration an MUST be defended and this is what allows the US to kill Japan.
I have progressed to an FIC IC on turn 1 in all my games now. It does not take much to overwhelm India any way, so even at 2 units a turn FIC is adequate. Also once transports are servicing Japan one can drop down to seazone 36 to supplement these troops.
I laid out my reasoning for Kiangsu in the above post, sezone 61 is out of reach of US bombers or fighters without Long Range. This can be used to build transports if I need them for Japan. They can also keep cycling from Japan to seazone 61 an unload every turn if need while my Navy takes care of other business.
In most normal games my second IC is in Manchuria because I am maxing out Japan and FIC. My third is usually Burma or India, although I may go for Kiangsu for ships or additional central front troops. I think an IC in Manchuria early is just a waste. Japan is right there and can produce 8 units. Manchuria also serves the same seazone as Japan so there is not tactical advantage there either. All an early Manchurian IC allows for is more troops where Japan should already have its most troops at any way. As far as baiting the Russian’s into something foolish, it looses a turn of production and defending it slows up my attacks against China.
Looking for 41 games Tech, National Objectives. I will be online daily for about a month and half and then back to my normal weekend schedule.
Very open to the type of series that Zhuk posted for except that I am for a much lower bid for the Allies. Tech and National Objectives are not negotiable for me either.
I build a J1 IC in FIC. This gives me a very early resupply of troops and attack pieces (arty) in the South West Asia, CBI,and South West Pacific areas. While an IC and sometimes even a latter one in Burma do not equal the production of island ICs, they do not require Naval defense and transport. I build a second IC in Manchuria when this and Japan maxes out, which is about turn 3. Depending on how early I capture India I will put an IC there or Burma, and by late may have built one in Burma after building one in India. I also like the ability of FIC to drop ships in SZ36 and SZ37.
There is just no way the Axis is going to pull this one out without Japan.
Good Game Bardoly, go report your win.
No rush Bardoly, I have been rather busy myself.
I did have an air heavy strategy involving the US I was working on right at the end of my Revised days.
It centers on that the US normally draws 38 IPCs. The US sends the fleet from the Pacific to the Atlantic and adds a carrier. The goal is to set it up where the US is purchasing and sending 6 infantry a turn to Europe or Africa while purchasing 2 fighters along with the 6 infantry each turn. The fighters can help defend Russia and can quickly accumulate to quite an offensive punch.
Combat Results
NW. Europe cleared
Bulgaria liberated 4 INF 1 ART 4 ARM present
NCM
2 FGT NW. Europe > Italy
Placement
3 INF Italy
Income
Collect 9 + (0) = 9
Bulgaria
4 INF 1 ART 4 ARM
Rolls: 2@1 3@2 4@3; Total Hits: 42@1: (6, 5)3@2: (5, 2, 5)4@3: (6, 1, 3, 2)
1 INF
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (4)