America/Soviet Role

This plan doesn’t ignore Japan, that’s a compete foolish move in my opinion. I just build bombers enough to keep Germany annoyed while maintaining a Pacific Fleet. As I said before, I build a 1:1 build against Japan and make sure Hawaii doesn’t get captured.

@JDOW:

@taamvan:

Malaya is too vulnerable, and it takes too long to secure.   HK is far stronger for your later-game strategic defense (free NB), hidden square)

The opposite is the case for Malaya. Yes, it is vulnerable but strategically Malaya is the by far most powerful IC Japan can place.

I think you’re taking FIC as a given there. I can’t see how the Malaya IC is more powerful than FIC. Doesn’t need a naval base built to reach Calcutta?

The only time I have built an air base for Holland is when doing sea lion from sz110. It was a long time ago, but I believe I did it because the US had a couple loaded carriers (sz102) and bombers in range to hit my tpt fleet after the assault on London. I think we were testing out sea lion theories at the time, so the allied player knew that sea lion was a good possibility.

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

maybe you can find adequate stuff here:

i live in europe as well and once i ordered some chips only…cost less then 50 $. there had been no harassment like special taxes etc. i think for small pieces like tokens you won´t have to pay any tax.

rock on!

Such is life. You try, and try harder, and succeed. And then something stupid happens.

I find a little changing in the second Edition:

Page 39 Pacific Rulebook 2ed:
“If the Soviet Union attacks Korea or any Japan-controlled territory bordering these Mongolian territories while Mongolia is still a strict neutral, Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union.”

So attacking Korea with Soviet Union breaks in second Edition now the Soviet-Japanese Non-agression-Pact. Thats a difference to the first Edition. Its a decision from the developer to strength the Axis (here Japan).

Any comments?! New tactics now? Lower risk for Japan, that the russians attack Manchuria or Korea?

You should give A2 a try and then A3 and then make a personal choice as to which you prefer, which version is more balanced for your playstyle.

For instance if you like to take risks than A3 is better because it rewards sloppy play more than A2(unstoppable sealion/IndiaCrush)