B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

@marshmallowofwar @crockett36 et alii

In the Pacific and in general-- BB is the way to go, IMO.

Personally, I prefer CV SUB FIG over either BB or CA/DD in bulk. Having 2-3 BB is intimidating (psychological), has soak (adsorbs hits), has bombardment–and the BBs are the last stuff to survive in a pyrrhic battle where both sides took great losses.

Numbers have an advantage, and so having 2 units might be better than 1 because they are more flexible.

However, the reason the CA (Cruiser) is so weak is that it can’t defend (either itself, or the fleet) against the subshot. Whether this is psychological or odds-driven, all your CA must be given up before your last DD is. Moreover, the DD is required to cover each fleet, and block other squares–so it has a much higher utility value.

I’ve tried to design a “Cruiser Crush” KGF/ATL and it wont work. You need ##s… the small advantage of novelty and bombardments isn’t worth it. With 5-6 CA in SZ 91, you’re going to get creamed, and you’ll have to lose your higher units first!

To broaden the conversation, the cruiser isn’t overpriced…its correctly priced. There are two rules that nerf it out 1) 1 bombard per amphibious unit drop 2) any interference (scramble, killing defenseless unit or sub, prebattle) blocks all shots.

I think all the rules work flavorfully, though imperfectly with one another. So to make the cruiser better, something has to give which is why people try to repurpose or reprice the cruiser.

Summation: Go big, Go BB instead.

It was my first game… So I thought i might try…

So Gargantua – what you doing next in our game? Surrendering?? Or going to chew me up like the cookie monster?? LOL

Transports may not attack without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines.

This should read “Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”

@Dark_Destroyer:

RAW = Says nothing about air units, just “additional units”.  RAI = Means air included.

It says nothing explicitly about sea units, either.  The type of units is unspecified, implying that any type of unit that may legally move there is allowed.

@Dark_Destroyer:

RAW = Can not move into a territory unless it’s occupied by enemy forces.  This would include sea zones that don’t scramble.

An exception for an amphibious assault where scrambling may occur is explicitly made here.

@Dark_Destroyer:

If you don’t scramble and don’t have any enemy forces and don’t amphibiously assault, moving airplanes into that sea zone is not a valid move.

True.

@Dark_Destroyer:

RAI = You can always bring air into sea zones just to cover what if’s.

No.  RAW = You can always bring units (sea and/or air) into sea zones from which you’re doing an amphibious assault, if there is a potential for the defender to scramble.

@Young:

@edfactor:

When Japan grabs the money islands, malaya, hong kong, FIC and the philippines its income nearly doubles, with a little push in China - Japan can outporoduce the US.  Japan only starts hurting when Japan plans poorly and doesn’t make a massive land grab on its first turn of war with the allies.

To be honest, I’m not sold on the idea that Japan can do all that plus hurt China. That doubled income may not last very long.

Depends on the Chinese player, mainly moving their stacks from air attack range.

However, if the Japanese player is consistent in striking Yunnan, denying China materials, it can be done. Trust me.

The real problem comes if Britain decides to do a can opener with tanks and mechanized infantry.

Page 9 in the Pacific 1940 Rulebook does the job for me

Figure out how to hit the USA on G3-G7 along with Jap help and It help  Gib is key

Makes sense for Japan to take it, of course, but it’s strategically and logistically implausible that they will get the DEI for more than one turn and never again thereafter.