TripleA needs your help

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@orania:

Has war been declared on the states? If not you are not allowed to leave the coastal seazones of the US. You are allowed to do a longe range patrol into seazone 102.

I’ve just realised this last night. MAde a couple of novice errors as still getting up to speed on the rules as first game on 1940.

Someone suggested an inf for Anz on New Guinea (in another thread). It doesn’t sound like much, but you can get the Anz NO (Dutch New Guinea) w/o losing a transport. There are probably better places for bid units, but I thought that one was interesting. It wasn’t a game changer like adding fleet, or units to unbalance (or as some would say balance) the Med etc….

@Bravehart:

How many hours was it when the 5th round was played? Just curious.

Too many something like 5h

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.

winrar.exe it’s free

It depends on whether you’re talking about OOB or Alpha.  In OOB, kamikaze may be used if the ships end their combat movement in a kamikaze zone, whether or not there is a battle.  In Alpha, kamikaze are triggered by combat, not combat movement, so the ships must actually fight in a kamikaze zone (or launch an amphibious assault from it) in order to be targeted.

That was precisely my thought, McLovin.  I feel, at this point in time, Germany needs a method to produce warships in the Med.  If one allows Italy to take S. France, this - essentially - means that Germany has to build a complex in Yugoslavia.  This may be a good idea in the long run anyway, making it a little easier to reinforce the south against Russia. (OOB this could be a major complex, Alpha 2 I do not think it can.)

I feel an Airbase would be nice to accompany the complex in Yugoslavia, if you go this route, since then you can put 6 fighters in the air for cover air patrol.  But again, if you have S. France, I think you would not need this. (Little harder since you have to build Italy in one zone and Germany in another instead of combined, but much cheaper.)