Lost rulebook question

Cheers, thanks very much for the answers, clears things right up for me.

Still a bit unsure as to why I would use Artillery. A 2/2 unit for 4 IPCs versus a 3/3 unit for 5. Artillery may support infantry but Tanks have got 2 move and Blitz, which more or less cancel each other out. Using Artillery as the Soviets to help Infantry take and hold WR or something along there makes sense, but other than that I don’t see why I would ever build them instead of tanks, as I’d have to invest a fairly hefty amount of IPCs to get a significant numerical advantage.

That being said, I’ve only had this game for a day or so, so I’m sure there’s something I could be missing out on.

Something to remember about infantry units in 1941, they were able to shoot down aircraft. So with this in mind it is possible to shoot down enemy aircraft. I don’t agree with them being able to shoot down bombers, but some realism is lost to “game” play. Of course as players, you all can agree to modify your own rules so long as all agree.

Mm.  Without a whole lotta explanation, I’d agree with Hobbes’ last assessment.  BTW, all that carrier stuff - it’s not that it’s Hobbes’ pet strategy - it’s just that Advosan brought it up, so I threw in a reply.

Germany may be able to use clever builds to stall UK from building in sea, but I see no way to race Russia’s ground from the east (at LEAST requiring German infantry) and a combined UK/US fleet.  Japan takes a while to get going, and early gains by the Russians translate to IPCs in the bank.

Best, I’d think, is the strategies Hobbes alluded to.  I think implementation comes down to either 5 tanks 5 infantry G1 build, 8 tanks G1 build, or bomber/infantry mix, possibly building only infantry early, possibly concentrating on bombers early . . . I can’t say which.

I’ll comment more in another thread.

As far as this thread being an exaggeration - well, it is quite modest for Hobbes not to toot his own horn, and perhaps he doesn’t himself believe that he’s a juggernaut.  But I’d say that even if he got schooled in Revised, I’d say he improved.  Certainly, I’d like to see the implementation of his Axis strats.

Okay that will make me think about my plans a bit.

Thanks

Thank you again, Krieghund!
I had the wrong meaning of ‘combat round’, now everything makes perfect sense.
Great job!

Thanks thats the way I’ve been playing, I just wanted to be sure.

@Cuyahoga:

I see…

Now say that UK takes all their 34 IPC…

Then say the next German turn…they have no IPC on paper…so the don’t buy any new forces…they do their
combat turn…they take back Berlin…they move their IPC marker back up from 24 to 34…then they collect IPC…they record on paper they have 34 IPC ( which they hope they will have to spend on next turn).

Then the UK does their turn and they retake Berlin again…so are you saying once again they grab those 34 IPC ?

If that is so…wouldn’t Germany be digging them in a big hole as far as UK amassing a huge ammount of IPC?

This seems an unfair rule?

Am i still missing something?

opps , i made an error…when i said that on Germany’s first turn after losing their capital…that thay had no IPC on paper and thus could buy no new forces…that was an error on my part…because they can’t buy new forces when their capitalis occupied by the enemy…

good deal, that’s the way we played it, but the way the printing actually worked out overlapping it coulda helped the German defense of the Med, as would have that UK sz3 thing to protect Karelia.
thanks Krieg.