Contested seazone question

@shadowhawk

Easier said than done though.

Right off the bat Germany will be consistently making more money than both Britain and the Soviet Union having taken out the rest of Europe and thats before they start attacking the Soviet Union.

Keeping the income advantage really only rests on America since the only change in their income will be losing the Philippines islands, as for everybody else, they can expect their IPC count to plummet with the combined strength of the Germans and Italians.

Also, like I said, taking Rome and Berlin is on the table to accomplish, taking Tokyo however not so much since A) it’s on an island B) It’s gonna have lot’s of dudes on it and C) the Pacific is too big to build any assortment of floating bridge and would be too expensive, hence why we would end the game if Japan is limited to their home island plus maybe Korea since they’re pretty much dead in the water so there is no point in playing any further.

@AndrewAAGamer said in Allies IC Question:

So first off, let me say, that unless France went poorly, and I lost too many units, I always take Normandy on G2. So, this is kind of a new line of thought for me.

It should not be new to you. I’ve been preaching it at IP games and here on the forums since 2016. Here’s an article where I specifically mention not taking Normandy:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/994002

No one listens…

Marsh

Okay……seems pretty obvious now I see. Thought I been very thorough reading up on things…evidently NOT!! Thanks

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@RedIndian:

Ok here are another 3 :D

USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

I found this a bit weird rule as it also bars US from staging ships near singapore which is a major naval base for the UK.
But the rules are the rules :)

It is clear the US cannot attack before turn 4 without being attack is G40’s attempted to get AnA closer to historical actions. US was big about Monroe Doctrine. The bigger question is why USSR cannot attack before Turn 4. I know it’s about the pact between Stalin and Hitler but anyone with a brain knew Stalin was going to attack eventually.

I don’t know why you focus on that now but I will give you an answer.
Stalin’s plan was to wait until all the other powers have weaken each other, so that the USSR is able to conquer the world easily. (he said this on a party meeting of the communism in the 20’s)
Anyone who still says the USSR was nearly or ready to attack the Germans by 1941 is a liar!
The Russians weren’t ready (just had their “great purge”) at all. And as I said, they wanted to wait until there would be a chance later on!
So to me the rule does make sense. It makes it more historical. And if Germany invades & conquers UK, you have the chance to declare war. (this covers Stalin’s plan to wait, although no one know what happened if…)

For the Pacific, the USSR was interested in getting their territories back they had lost years ago against Japan.
But they weren’t strong enough at this time to do this without any help. The navy of the Russians in the Pacific wasn’t strong enough to face the Japanese.

Since 1932 there were several boarder conflicts between USSR and Japan in the north of Mandchuko. Finally in April 1941 both countries signed the  “Soviet�Japanese Neutrality Pact”.
Although many Allied partners of those both countries tried to push them into war with eachother (US the USSR against Japan / Germany Japan against Russia), they never came into war. (Russia needed the troops for Europe, Japan against China, US and all the other pacific campaigns)
Ok at the very last days Russia took some territories but only after all other combats in Europe were done!

So as a German I can give you the advice, be careful what you’re saying. This argument pushed by other nations until 1980s / 1990s justified the attack of the Germans in June, 22 1941. As some of the German Veterans say. Those people were told this, just to make this attack a right and justified one. They (Nazis) even said, this was a defending attack, although it was planned by Hitler for other purposes. Anything else is “Propaganda” or in Trump’s days “fake news”

Historians from different nations proofed this.

So no, Stalin doesn’t want to attack Germany that early! Maybe later, but there are no concrete hints for that in comparison to the Nazis.

We use a software called ‘TripleA’ to play online. Just check out these links:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18278.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27127.0

and browse through the “Play Boardgames”-subforum with it’s child boards

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=40.0

to get an idea about it.

There is either “play by email/play by forum” or live games in the so-called “Lobby”.

Don’t hesitate to ask your TripleA related questions in the Software-Subforum.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=53.0

HTH :-)

The current rule is (Pacific rules, page 16): If an Allied player attacks Japanese units in or declares an amphibious assault from one of these sea zones, the Japanese player can announce at the beginning of this phase that he or she intends to launch one or more kamikaze strikes in that sea zone.  They are resolved before any combat begins.

So the status of any land territories adjacent to the kamikaze sea zones has no relevance.

Historical Sealion or in game Sealion? If it’s the latter I should say it’s already been explained.

The NAs from the revised rulebook are hardly compatable with AA 40