Favorite country to use.

@dazedwit every group of players has their own tendencies. Sometimes a different unique strategy breaks the box. I’d start by saying 99 percent of the time a Romanian major factory is a poor decision. It doesn’t tangibly accelerate the time line into russia. You can use the russian factories and have 30 dollars of additional troops to capture these. It sounds like your group doesnt do a g1 attack on russia? I found my new favorite barbarossa plan is to strip 3 tanks from paris and hit eastern Poland with 6 tanks and some infantry. I can attack moscow on 5 with fair chances for success I can hold for g6 with overwhelming odds. If the allies sellout and rally 10 plus fighters to moscow it may take a little longer but axis should be doing well elsewhere. If your buddy is building a major factory. Do what works. Bomb him until he figures out his mistake. I like your thinking, just be ready to evolve when your buddy fixes his strategy.

@thedesertfox @Tin-Can-of-the-Sea
You’re both right about ANZAC units. They have the best colour.

from what I can see when running sims, I test with germany attacking with every landunit that can reach (7 I , 4 M, 3 A,  6 T ) V (1 AAA, 6 I, 2 A,  , 2T , 1 Ftr)  it gives germany 99.9% chance of winning about 24 IPC of loss

If you compare that too
(7 I , 4 M, 3 A,  6 T, 2 F, 2Tac ) V (1 AAA, 12 I, 2 A,  , 2T , 1 Ftr) , it gives about 99% chance of winning with 46 IPC loss

So, those 18 IPC used, gives immidiatly about 22 IPC lost for germany, and keeps 2 ftrs and 2 tacs away from the brit.

(if germany brings less planes to france, the chance of winning for the defender goes up fast, and the losses goes upp really fast)

@weddingsinger All I was trying to say is that parking your US fleet in SZ 6 is a recipe for disaster, when it can be in every space around SZ 6 and be much safer. You can however, park as many subs there as you want because 1) once you control that area, you can screen out destroyers who could come 2) he cant build ships in SZ 6 unless you threaten that build, so any destroyers that are built can be blown up before Japan’s next turn 3) the subs can’t be hit by either kamis or planes, whereas your surface fleet can usually be mopped up by Japan’s abundant air force returning home plus some kamis on the carriers to defeat the air support

When our group gets together, we usually have 6 players:
#1 = Germany
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC
#6 = Italy

5 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC

4 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = Japan
#4 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

3 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

2 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

1 Player:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan/Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

Okay, that last one was just a goof. It’s late and I’m getting silly now. Later all.

@knp7765:

If an attack that involves 3 planes goes after a territory with a single AA gun, in normal rules that AA gun would get 3 rolls @ 1 to try and hit those planes. With Low Luck, would you simply roll 1 die @ 3?

Yes, that’s the way to do it: roll 1 die @3. Ruling out abominations as combat results (with rolling dice), that’s the goal of using LL. Win/loose due to strategy, not blessed/jinxed dice.
The downside of LL is that you can exactly calculate what you need. In big battles I don’t see this as a problem. Smaller ones however are stuff for debate. A Yughoslavia strafe can never go ‘wrong’ because Germany rolls too much hits. Russia can safely strafe every area with 6INF that has 2 axis units in it (or 12 if there are 3 axis units, etc.), moving large INFstacks around without risk of actually taking the area.

What Japan does in the north really depends on what Russia does.
If they pile up all 18 infantry on Amur, then do like Wittmann said, pound them good and quick. Except for the 6 guys in Mongolia, that basically opens up all the Russian far east territories for Japan to walk into over the next few rounds. Almost like free IPCs for Japan.
If Russia withdraws all troops to head for Moscow, which I have seen happen, that leaves you free to use most of those troops in Manchuria and Korea in China or other places you might need extra troops. Just leave a few there on the border. Then after 3 rounds or so, when the Russians are too far west to hinder you, walk some troops up and start taking Soviet territories. Of course, you will have to deal with the 6 Mongolian/Russian troops but that shouldn’t be too difficult.
If Russia only withdraws some of the far eastern troops, like say he leaves 6-9 infantry in Amur and heads the rest toward Moscow, that usually means he wants to guard his eastern territories but isn’t looking to be aggressive toward Japan unless a blatant opportunity comes up (like Japan withdrawing all troops from Korea or Manchuria and leaving them totally open). In that case, as Japan, I would simply leave the troops there on Manchuria and Korea and consider that area a “non-combat zone”, meaning there is simply no fighting going on there. You could possibly take a couple of the troops to use elsewhere, but you don’t want to weaken youself too much or Russia might take advantage. Yeah, it sucks leaving so many guys just sitting there, but you have to keep Russia honest. Plus, at least you start with those guys and any new stuff can go to your campaigns elsewhere.

@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)