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.

OK, the teams are: Everyone for themselves! Where should the UK put this free IC?

Okay, last time: The teams are US/Ger vs. UK/Rus/Jap, and UK gets, yep, you guessed it: Colonial Garrison! Where should they put this one?

I vote for tokyo express + bombardment. The sub combo is nice but Germany has very little need for subs because he has to prosecute a land war against Russia as well, so the interdiction would be better if you want to play the economic shutdown with subs, but interdiction doesn’t really combine well with super subs since the subs you’re building aren’t necessarily attacking anything (in fact they’re probably getting hunted by planes).

Tokyo express and bombardment turns destroyers into a hybrid transport/battleship, which I think it very helpful for prosecuting island wars and such. For the price of one battleship you can get 2 bomabrdments with 2 destroyers, and they can carry 1 inf apiece too! That would be great to take back islands or invade US with all those bomardments and you could easily reinforce manchuria and the like.

Bombers are ok but still they’re expensive and you need to build stuff to shield them with as US; all you’re doing with heavy bombers is nearly guaranteeing a hit per bomber and/or getting high IPC damage rolls. Although this possibly could be very strong against germany if you land bombers in UK, getting the max 10 out of his territory every turn.

alternative. traditional set ups make me want to vomit with rage. nazis in mexico, japs in africa. no eastern europe line but a giant battle ground in india/china. comm’on. DP nightmare

A good thing is to throw ramdomly one NA and then, BID. So if the allies have Lend lease, colonial garnison, and superfortresses, and the axis have kaiten torpedo and dive bomber… the bid will be really high:

Winning bid 24 IPC ! I put 3 trannies in the baltic ! Sealion ! you’re dead , I win, lest start another game !

Subs in germany is a terrible idea because US/Brit’s bombers will decimate them. Subs do not fire back at air units!

@Seador:

Personally I find Banzai to be one of Japan’s best advantages as it is. It allows them to forgo expensive art and tank buys and just use Inf for ground wars.

My group uses full NAs too BAGM; for Japan we did the following based on LHTR:

Combined the Suicide NAs into one,
Altered the Fanatical Defenders to "Japanese Inf defend on a 3 in the first cycle of combat when defending a yellow territory. Japanese Inf on islands are not subject to Battleship bombardment.

and are still playing out various “new” NAs. Our current option up for testing is “Total war!”, allowing Japan to build an unlimited number of units on its home territory.

I also come up with something of a new Fanatical Resistance (Dug-In Defenders):

Fukkaku Defenses
The Japanese introduced the tactic of endurance engagements intended to inflict maximum casualties. This tacic called Fukkaku included bunkers and pillboxes connected by tunnels.
All your infantry on islands and Japan are immune to shore bombardment and defend during the opening fire of combat.

I think Panzerblitz helps a bit against Russia in the way you can move in with heavy support from tanks an then move em back when the territory is captured in a safe distance. However I do think The German player is in a bigger need of mobility for his infantry. Therefore I suggest one to replace Panzerblitz with any of my NA variant of Panzergrenadiers, especialy for those who thinks Panzerblitz sucks!

1. Panzergrenadiers
During World War II, the Germans had troops that were designed for fighting alongside tanks. These were fully motorized units, so that they could at all times keep up with the tanks.
Each of your tanks give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.

2. Panzergrenadiers
The Germans used elite troops that were designed for fighting alongside tanks, favoured with a greater proportion of the best equipment. These troops were fully motorised units, so that they could at all times keep up with the tanks.
Each of your tanks give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance and an increased attack capability of 2 or less in the first cycle of combat only. Even if supported by artillery, their attack remains 2. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.

3. Panzergrenadiers
The Germans used elite troops that were fully motorised. These troops were designed for fighting alongside tanks and favoured with the best equipment.
Each of your tanks give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance and an enhanced defense capability of 3 or less. This increased defense ability is for the first cycle of combat only.

I dont know who vote for the 8 inf buy, but I think it is not good at all to only buy that. You get no conter-offensive power with those infantry.

I prefer buying one figher in the first round, and 2 inf and 2 art.

I usually send one of my fighter to the East, to help defend india in the first round(s) and to give an offensive power to the grunts i’ve moved to the japanese front. Sooner of later, after the us and Uk are strong enough against Japan, my fighter come back against germany. Having 3 figthers give you the opportunity to trade country with germany without letting him the chance of destroying to much troops.

You can stack a better army behing your line.

To add to ydavid’s comment, czech out the explanation that it gives, as far as “you could move a fighter from Hawaii to the East Indies in one turn, as long as you control both island groups.” Without Island Bases, your fighters couldn’t go anywhere near that far.

Basically it only helps the US in the Pacific.

Variant 3 will make subs more or less useless against a Japanese fleet with at least one BB. So I think it is better to not mess up too much with the rules and vote for variant 2 or 1. In plain english, it is not worth fixing a rule that is supposed to fix another one. Things can get too complicated if one does! :wink:

@The:

The Japanese capitol ships are irreplaceable…That is Japans weak link…Wipe their navy out,however you can and Japan falls like a ripe apple.They wont be able to build an army large enough,nor have enough time to fight Russia

I agree, however its not that easy to catch the Japan navy if they play smart. I f the US navy at Pearl Harbour is destroyed at J1 it will take several turn before US can destroy the Japan navy if it stays together. And if US want to land in France it will even harder for the US navy get the upper hand on Japan. But it is possible, ive seen it happen.

I like to hold back all my Tanks and Fighters on the Eastern Font, say in Eastern Europe, and with a buffer of Infantry in and around them. Then, when Russia stretches out to far, I smash all his major military force in one fell swoop. Should he play smart, and keep playing defensively, I put out a force large enough to cause troubles if Russia ignores it, but small enough to be a temptation for him to destroy, and walk into my dead-zone. Just a thought…

since owning Revised… I just don’t have the feel to play the old game… Revised is better.

I’m sure it could work well. It just seems like a waste of resources to me to go with an Asian Wall; plus Japan will eventually take those complexes. If you invest resources in the Atlantic, then the UK should have no problem funneling in troops and fighters to RUS to help hold off the Japanese down the road, and have many more strategic options in the meantime. And Germany is likely completely screwed if the Allies go all out against Germany. I just feel that if you let the Jap’s rush toward MOS and the Allies rush towards Berlin, the Allies will beat them there. I need to try the asian wall sometime and see how it goes. Or face one from someone that knows what they’re doing. Then again, I rarely allow the UK to keep EGY after turn 1.

yes but their is just one little problem

what with island bases than

i think its ok this way beacuse ,when the island bases would worth for all ,with long range aircraft you could get 8 movement with fighters which is very powerful

and the game wouldnt be that much interesting

but thats just my opininon

After checking the logs, I think if you had kept playing, both Berlin and Moscow would have fallen in Round 6. So the game could have gone on for a long time, but the Allies would have Europe, I think. I haven’t played a long, protected game of AAR yet, but Japan would eventually have to fall as the Allies eventually take back Moscow.

from my point of view everyone needs to be offensive in the first round

its very useful ,to limit your opponents units which he potencially could use

I still disagree with the placement of navy units in the Baltic…If anywhere…you’d need them in the Med(for Africa, Caucasus, Middle East…) but if I saw Germany building a Baltic fleet…I’d just build a few aircraft…maybe a sub(probably not)…it wouldn’t bother me if my British Airforce was dead…as long as there’s still a big hole in the Baltic Sea…which is inevitable anyway…the smartest thing to do with that navy is to keep it put…relieving pressure on Eastern Europe, Germany, Karelia, and Norway