Minor Threat's Setup Charts & NO Cards

Simple yet effective. I sometimes use a little card with my (and my enemies) national objectives.

@texasranger97:

Are the NOs the same?

Yes, look here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1012638#msg1012638

I’ve got a more offensive posture to take if Japan masses in Carolines.  Move the fleet to z30, including the fighter from Philippines and 2 loaded transports.  Land 3 fighters, 1 tac and 1 bomber on Johnston Island and build an airbase there, with 2 more carriers in z10. Leave a destroyer in z25 and maybe z31 to block a landing on Hawaii. Now if Japan attacks anything J2 you can smoke that fleet off carolines and maybe even take the island if they don’t leave a blocker.  Planes that take off from Johnston island will land on the carriers from z10 when they NCM to z30.  ANZAC can help too.

Totally agree Cow. Most games are won by axis because of how fast they can expand, as well as how many air units they have that can do SO many differen’t moves. The allies air power must all be used for defense for a long time. Eventually I think the allies would win almost every game, if it were about total world conquest, but this game is based on the VC win. This means allies don’t stand much of a chance, in my oppinion. Honestly it reminds me of an 8 VC game in Revised.

@Gargantua:

I was in a group game, where we were winning, and my “allied” UK partner, got wiped from the game, after the germans rolled a last ditch fluke shot on Paratroopers, and took the London Capital.

It was all downhill from there, as no one was in range of taking it back immediately (Blocked)  and he was able to build off of U.K.

But would you say that this actually enhanced the gaming experience?

This is exactly the reason I don’t like the R&D rules, it is a bit too much based on luck and once earned changes the entire (delicate) balance of the game.

I hear this from the previous posts, though I would be very interested in how and why R&D deserves a place in the game based on long-term strategies…

(I can remember from the original setup it made strategic sence to invest in developments, but the game back then was less complicated and less delicately balanced)

“Taranto Raid” refers to the November 1940 assault by the United Kingdom on the Italian navy, docked at Taranto.

It’s often used on this forum to describe a first-turn attack by the UK on Italy’s Mediterranean fleet.

Your understanding is correct, MarkVIIIMarc.  However, in scenario 2 the UK player has no casualty options that won’t result in stranding the fighter.  Since sub hits must be taken on sea units, the only casualty options are the one you chose or taking both hits on the carrier, dooming both fighters.  At any rate, taking the hit on the carrier and stranding the fighter is always an option.

good luck with that