My game crashed, I had to repeat US move. Unfortunately, my second Caroline Island invasion failed with that, without even killing that one infantry.
Also, I have to give my opinion - very boring way to play the Axis. And the game as a whole. I understand when you played Allies, sitting there, building up and waiting for the opponent’s mistake, but this…
Hm, it hit.
triplea_37932_FRE19.tsvg
Scramble UK tac to SZ 40?
@artofwar1947 No.
Why so many edits? It is difficult to follow what is going on.
The program was screwy. I did not have edits on, but my entire NCM was recorded as edits.
Normally, I would have scrambled a fighter from SZ 37 to defend FIC. However, given the circumstances (e.g., imminent threat of invasion of Japan by US/ANZAC forces, most of the Japanese air out of position to defend Japan, the small defensive force on Japan, the likely loss of the fighter on Guam),it would not have worth risking the Japanese fighter in an essentially pointless defense of FIC. FIC turns French and, thus, provides no IPCs to the Allies, and Japanese land and air units can easily take FIC back next turn.
So, I edited back in the UK inf in FIC (which was hit by the fighter), returned FIC ownership to to the French, and restored the Japanese fighter in SZ 37 (whose function it was to defend the the TT).
I understand what you are saying, that is fine. I did not ask, because we had few similar situations in this game when I attacked with poor force and you always scrambled.
However, I think the FIC turns British, because French is not controlling the capital. So, you would need to edit that as well and add 2 IPC to British Pacific, minus eventual convoy roll.
No carrier scramble this time.
@nikola1975 said in PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al):
However, I think the FIC turns British, because French is not controlling the capital. So, you would need to edit that as well and add 2 IPC to British Pacific, minus eventual convoy roll.
I did not think the ipcs could be added to the UK-Pac, because E India is controlled by the Japanese.
@artofwar1947 Hm, yes, you are right of course.
