AAG40 Setup Pictures(Larry's Alpha Setup)

No problem.  I am not an internet Nazi troll who makes fun of people for spell check errors.  I was just curious if that really was a real usage of C5H5N.

Captain walker, I’m not trashing this strategy, but wouldn’t an extra carrier for each power be more helpful, and give you more mobility for roughly the same cost?  Although an English AB on Gib, and an American AB on Morocco sounds intriguing giving you a really good air def for your transport navies(s) it sounds very costly. I’m not sure how that helps you when you move to Norway or deeper into the Med though because you would be leaving the cover of those bases, and the Luftwaffe could hit you then.

I could see it helping though if you build your fleet(s) then next turn move to Gib and drop AB(s) on the same turn so you could get immediate air cover. You wouldn’t have to wait for a carrier built that turn to catch up, but you would still need to bulk-up the navy before you move towards your objectives so I’m not seeing a major benefit for spending 30 IPCs on AB(s). Sounds like you may be going light on your navy builds for protection of your transports, and are compensating with the AB’s but the cost of the ABs is what is causing the weaker navy builds to start with.

I guess it would help to shuck-shuck through Gib though needing fewer naval units to protect your ships off Gib. I can see this would hold off the Luftwaffe for some time as well so there are some pro"s and con’s to say the least.

@wittmann:

If you are playing Global, yes.
Is not easy. You will probably only get the bonus on UK1.

Well, if germany/italy work hard enough, then yes.  The only places they u might have trouble retaking would be malta, cyprus, and alex if germany lands planes with italian garrison.  British somaliand is annoying but reclaimable.  everywhere else, the allies should eb able to reclaim without too much trouble.

@special:

@Young:

I suppose the rule disallowing America from building a Major in Finland, was very significant for balance as well.

You mean Norway. But yes, it’s a big difference

You’re right, I meant Norway.

You know, I’m kind of surprised that Larry didn’t include US Submarines in costing 3 IPCs for convoy raiding.  Historically, the US submarine force did the same thing to Japanese merchant shipping that German U-boats did to Allied shipping in the Atlantic.  In fact, the US submarines were actually successful at it whereas through convoying and ASW improvements, the U-boat threat in the Atlantic was gradually reduced.  US subs were so successful that in 1944 the US Navy had to cut back on submarine production because they already had too many and were running out of targets since they had so crippled the Japanese importing.

Calvin’s right.

@djarnen:

So… in the case that UK takes Rome, while London is held by the Germans, the money from Rome would not go to Calcutta, because its on the Europe side of the board ?

Then let ANZAC take Rome, they know how to use that money, man.