Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
I see it there! Thanks!
Was only looking in the unit profiles where it says you can’t have multiple IC’s, but remains silent on bases…. -
Gamer + Krieg,
Say you are conducting an amphib assault in a sea zone that only contains an enemy transport. Is it legal to attack the transport with a plane while also conducting shore bombardment with a bb? Can you do both or is it just one or the other?
I feel like this already came up in the AA50 faq but I don’t remember what the answer was lol.
-
Right, yes it did - no problem -
You can not attack a transport and also bombard from that sea zone.
-
Does the movement restrictions for America in the Atlantic prevent ships from San Fransisco moving through the Panama Canal when not at war?
-
@Young:
Does the movement restrictions for America in the Atlantic prevent ships from San Fransisco moving through the Panama Canal when not at war?
No. As long as the ships on the Europe boards are adjacent to USA territory or in that one allowed zone in the middle of the Atlantic (forget the number)
Also, ships from EUS could go through the Panama and into the Pacific.
-
Thanks
-
Japan is attacking an ANZAC ship in a sea zone containing American ships. It is Japan’s first attack on the Pacific Allies, can the American ships defend or do they have to wait to declare war? In game… Need answer quick.
-
@Young:
Japan is attacking an ANZAC ship in a sea zone containing American ships. It is Japan’s first attack on the Pacific Allies, can the American ships defend or do they have to wait to declare war? In game… Need answer quick.
If Japan did not declare war on the USA, then the American ships do NOT defend, but must wait until USA declares war.
The ANZAC ship is on its own.
-
Planes still can’t fly over neutrals right? By neutrals i mean true, pro-allied, and pro-axis.
-
they can’t fly over a neutral during combat move, unless and only if they are being used to attack that neutral. they CAN fly over a neutral they have attacked that turn during NONCOM however.
-
If America liberates Celebes, do they get the 3 IPC income increase.
-
Planes still can’t fly over neutrals right? By neutrals i mean true, pro-allied, and pro-axis.
Right.
-
@Young:
If America liberates Celebes, do they get the 3 IPC income increase.
It’s not liberation. Liberation is when you free an Ally’s territory from enemy control and the control reverts back to your ally.
USA can take control of the Celebes (or any other Dutch territory) if they wrest it from an Axis power. They then get all the benefits from controlling the territory, including the increased income, yes.
(Once a Dutch territory is controlled by any playable power, it will never be Dutch again.)
Control can never go directly from Dutch to American. It must be controlled by an Axis power before USA can control it and get income from it (any Dutch territory) -
Ok, the US flew a fighter on to a UK carrier and the US is not at war. If Germany were to attack that carrier does that bring the US into the war or does the plane just not fight?
-
Ok, the US flew a fighter on to a UK carrier and the US is not at war. If Germany were to attack that carrier does that bring the US into the war or does the plane just not fight?
:-)
It was illegal to fly the US fighter on to the UK carrier.On a related note,
At sea, you can ignore the units of powers with which you are not currently at war
On land, you cannot attack a territory that contains any units of power with which you are not at war. You must declare war on that power to attack the territory at all. -
Can all allied air units land on Dutch islands without needing to first land on them, or is it just ANZAC and UK?
-
@Young:
Can all allied air units land on Dutch islands without needing to first land on them, or is it just ANZAC and UK?
Yes, any ally could land on Dutch territories (including in South America) because the Dutch are one of the Allies (at war with Germany)
Note, however, that the USA cannot land on Dutch territories (or move ground units into them) before the USA is in the war, because the USA is still neutral until at war, and is not an ally of the Dutch yet.
-
@Young:
Can all allied air units land on Dutch islands without needing to first land on them, or is it just ANZAC and UK?
Yes, any ally could land on Dutch territories (including in South America) because the Dutch are one of the Allies (at war with Germany)
Note, however, that the USA cannot land on Dutch territories (or move ground units into them) before the USA is in the war, because the USA is still neutral until at war, and is not an ally of the Dutch yet.
So would the following be a correct statement?
ANZAC, France, and the United Kingdom may land air units on Dutch Islands or territories immediatly without controlling them for a full turn. America, and Russia may also do this when they are at war with Germany.
-
@Young:
So would the following be a correct statement?
ANZAC, France, and the United Kingdom may land air units on Dutch Islands or territories immediatly without controlling them for a full turn. America, and Russia may also do this when they are at war with Germany.
Yeah….
But I’m not sure about Russia on the Pacific map… Who would have to be at war with who… although it’s highly unlikely for that to ever be an actual issue, right?
-
@Young:
So would the following be a correct statement?
ANZAC, France, and the United Kingdom may land air units on Dutch Islands or territories immediatly without controlling them for a full turn. America, and Russia may also do this when they are at war with Germany.
Yeah….
But I’m not sure about Russia on the Pacific map…Â Who would have to be at war with who… although it’s highly unlikely for that to ever be an actual issue, right?
Well ANZAC, France, and the UK can land on them because they are at war with Germany (same as Dutch), so Russia and America would have to be at war with Germany to do the same move. I included this because if Russia is at war with Japan but not Germany, they couldn’t land a plane on the Dutch Islands …. right?
Suggested Topics
