USA attack

The only time I would attack KArelia is if the Russian player is careless and leaves it lightly defended or the Japanese player has already cleaned up six or so Russian AP.  Not sure what a bid is.

fair enough. Let’s say you pull the armor back, and toss fighters in? Or one arm, one ftr?
Also it’s not just the german ftr but also it’s armor(s). Plus stalling it for 2 turns (by forcing it to pull back instead of allowing it to build up).

I’m not sure I follow, how does hitting EEuro hurt Germany more than attacking Ukr. It has 1 more armor anyway, and you have more guys to throw in. Further against a good PE bid you’d likely be creating a deadzone in Karelia even with armor there, or I could stack Cauc to force you from Karelia on R2. Either way I don’t see why attacking EEuro is going to hurt Germany more than hitting Ukr would.

Depending on the bid of course, but interesting is

sub vs sub in AZO

2 ftr vs trn, sub in BAL
8/3 vs Ukr

and maybe 5/1 vs Man (only w/1 inf Kwa bid or less)
ncm the trn to NOR and Germany has a tough task.

Yes very much depending on the bid if you ask me. IMO no Africa bid should ever happen unless you are prepared to bid 2 guys into Manch. I assume an Africa bid as against a PE bid this would be extremely risky, and create a potential deadzone out of Karelia. So yes I’d say this would work against only the very worst of bids.

That’s the only reason I’d risk all my tanks in E Euro. At least I know I’ll have another round to build before an invasion. I don’t like it, but in an unRR, no bid game (ie playing by the printed rules) I could see the tactical advantage to taking Manch, E. Euro, Baltic Sea and the sea zone to the west of France with Russia followed by a Kwang attack by the UK.

But herein lies the problem in a no bid no RR game why would Russia need to ever worry about Karelia. I would also question why Russia would need to attack Manchuria as in a no bid game the Allies start with such an impressive advantage they don’t need to do much to win.

At the same time, consider that the first-turn fighter gives you an “early” defensive bonus.

But the Allies do not need an early defensive purchase. If played right the Germans should not be able to take Karelia until turn 5 or 6 at the earliest, and this is without fighter purchases. So considering this longterm reality the shorterm is of no consequence. In my experience the Allies win by limiting/reducing Germany’s ipc level and then reducing their income. With this in mind I’d say a bomber or a carrier is always a better purchase because of their obvious uses.

One rule says that you can move a planes max movement and ignore landing……

Ah, the old fashion black and white Simcity on the computer, that sure brings back memories. I was never really good at that game – I constantly outspent myself even with hefty taxes. I guess Risk 2 is next on the list of things I sure check out hehe. :wink: I’m still waiting for Axis and Allies with simultaneous play, but for the time being, I’ll have to stick with using to Axis & Allies with two boards to get any real feeling of surprise.

Helium power? Isn’t that also flameable or am I thinking of a different element?

Naval guns are pretty accurate. But they’re more used in mass saturation then precision strikes. Sometimes you don’t have access to the neccessary tacticle information to put out such strikes. Besides, mass saturation is useful just too flatten all of the enemy’s defenses in one stroke. The BB has it’s own cruise missile to do precision bombing.

What use is it if India is to be taken by Japan on the very first turn?

definatly yes.