Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

@Tutti Thanks for reading.

The original post addresses purchases after the US enters the war, once its industrial complexes have been upgraded and income is augmented by National Objective bonuses. Thus, “USA1” refers to America’s second turn after entering the war, which would be the first turn they have ~70 IPC to spend. Up to that point, my recommendation is to make those necessary “security” purchases - carriers, destroyers, aircraft, etc.

I understand your aversion to buying ground troops, only to have them sit for a turn while you buy transports the next. When the US is at war, you can certainly do several turns of 5x5x5 buys (5 infantry, 5 artillery, 5 transports for 70 IPC). I’ve done this many times, myself. If your goal is to assemble an invasion force - a force large enough to make a successful amphibious assault and survive an enemy counterattack - the 5x5x5 system will work just as well as the (10x10)+10 purchases I detailed, but only in the Atlantic. Because the US only has one IC on the Pacific, the (10x10) +10 is still the most efficient method of assembling a force to invade Japan.

As for the troops America starts the game with…they can easily be incorporated into your invasion forces, but I usually have other uses for them. To give just three examples: 1) I use the Atlantic transport to activate Brazil and shuttle the Brazilian infantry to Gibraltar or Morocco, 2) The American armor and mech infantry, when parked in the Western US, can deter Japan from invading Alaska, and 3) As soon as the US enters the war, I like to use the transport off Hawaii to capture the Marshall Islands. If the Japanese don’t have carriers within striking distance of Hawaii, taking the Marshalls eliminates the threat from Japan-based strategic bombers, allowing you to safely move undefended transports to Hawaii.

I think if anything, it actually gives you reason to be aggressive because you want to stop what they are going to make and you know that your damage will not effect the other player until the 2nd turn from when you captured.

@regularkid:

If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.

I think bids are far outside the scope of this specific conversation, but since you mentioned it, I think that the way you use bids by adding extra units to the initial set up, ruin the game balance in earnest and are both moot and lame. At the same time. In a slightly derogatory way. Now if you play against real men, they will probably offer the US NO bid, which gives US extra NO money, distributed each and every turn. This money will not come to effect before Turn 3 or 4, so they will not ruin the first Turn set up balance. IMHO anyway, not alway but sure in Norway.

And in this case, the Persian factory is more worthwhile

New record, 24 minutes and 2 seconds! :-D
I’m glad you found it.

I read this about Stuka:

The dive-bomber was a purpose-built aircraft, designed to drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy on frontline battlefield targets. To support their panzer offensives, the Germans developed close air support into an art form and the Stuka was central to this effort. The secret of German successes in this field was the close integration between air and ground units. Stuka squadrons worked hand-in-hand with ground units so they could intervene rapidly at the decisive point of the battlefield. These highly specialist squadrons were in the thick of the action and developed an impressive reputation. The need to fly deep into the heart of battle meant Stuka pilots suffered some of the highest casualty rates in the Luftwaffe, and as a consequence became some of the most highly decorated German servicemen. Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most famous Stuka pilot and squadron commander of the war. He was also the most highly decorated German soldier of the war, being the only serviceman to receive the Knight’s Cross with Golden Oak Leaves with Swords and Diamonds.

This give the general tactics. Does Variable depiction a special case of the above Stuka tactics?

From pg 28 of the 2nd edition Europe rules;

Blitz: A mechanized infantry unit must normally stop
when it enters an enemy controlled territory. However,
when paired one-for-one with a tank, it can make a blitz
movement (see “Tanks,” page 29) along with that tank.
The movement of both units must start and end in the
same territories.