Can i get some assistance please.

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

I haven’t seen any warping of my boards (yet).

For the records: my box arrived undamaged, although I still have to check the playing pieces.

Yes, the fighter on WAK is overkill. It’s imperative to use all fleet and as much aircraft to pose a legitimate threat to USA round 2. Early production in WUS buys at least a turn for France - which is infinitely more valuable than Italy.

As this game played out, Japan took AUS and IND, Germany never won Russia, but it didn’t have to. Which is another subject entirely. I recall stopping myself, thinking what’s the point in taking Russia when it can’t really do anything? I turned to UK and though I lost Italy, the allies never got into FRA! We called it a day after seven rounds and the allies just looking for holes. It was awesome!

Jumping into this, here was a proposal to a bomb Italy strategy I used against my buddy.

He toyed with the ideal of buying a factory in the Balkans, I would choose Poland for Germany.( He did build a factory in Libya, which could only be bomber for 2 dollars.)

While expensive, Italy or Germany could then build the 1st infantry for 7 dollars , the second and third ones for 4 dollars. (since the max damage on a territory worth 3 is 6).

It still works out to +2 per unit built , but your “start up costs” are cheaper (3 vs 10) If Germany had heavy bombers, using a 3ipc factory would allow you to build 2 heavy bombers a turn for 29 ipcs. (with 3-5 heavy bombers and 2-4 planes on the board, the Atlantic will be empty near your coastlines, and with your starting infantry placed right, Russia will be afraid to move next to them. If the allies do land on your coast, use your next turn to clear their fleet from the board.

You could save “excess” money after you build 3 units, to repair Germany every other turn, or every third turn, for more units.

If you are saving for a big build, then with the little factory, you can place 3 inf a turn for 15 dollars (vs 21 in Germany)  and use the excess money every second or third turn in Germany itself. 21 minus 15 equals 6 dollars saved, paying for the cost of the factory in 3 turns. Just move the AA gun from the damaged German factory to the Poland one during noncombat.

They can bomb you, but you don’t lose any money until you make the repairs, so just think outside the box a bit.
Its not ideal, but it is a work around for an SBR strat.

Yeah, tin snips is right.

It would be really nice for Italy though if you cold use that German transport in the Med this way.

@Romulus:

But subs, as TRNs, can not stall because they may be ignored by other surface ships that may treat the sea zone with subs within as friendly or am I wrong?

You’re not wrong.

Yes, this is correct.  Having no destroyers is a pretty big mistake.

@Krieghund:

@timerover51:

2.  Same situation as above, except the UK player also sends a fighter/bomber along in the attack.  The cruiser is sunk by the first strike of the UK sub.  Does the U-boat protect the transport, even though it cannot engage the aircraft, and the aircraft cannot engage it?

No.  Since the sub and planes can’t engage each other, the transport is defenseless.

True enough but i don’t see why the german would choose the cruiser to take the first strike instead of it’s sub.