Converting Punch to Percentage; Question for Math Geeks!

@krieghund

Thank you for responding! Yes, America found this rule and lost a strategic bomber for it.

Agree with GHG, the limitation there is because you spend so many resources and so much time building up as the USA, it just wouldn’t seem fair that you could just pick off his invasion force, which in some situations, the USA player can not replace for 2 turns or possibly, ever.      Of course, its still pretty much impossible to invade japan proper unless you are demolishing him economically and even then, it takes quite a bit of time to get the forces over there–however, japan is not the only place he can kami --how is it fair to let him kami a transport that’s coming into iwo jima to set up a US strongpoint there?

The true limitation of the kamikaze is that there are really only 4 units that can be hit by it; dd ca cv bb    (no subs, transports, or planes, so its a long list), and 2 of those things aren’t sunk by just 1 hit.

Carriers are the most vulnerable, but they don’t even have to come along, they can wait in the wings and all they bring to the battle is soak hits.

Plenty of times when the allies attack SZ 6 they do it with like 2-3 naval units and 10+ planes, so the kami isn’t effective alone in stopping him.

The reason to keep it around in Japan’s pocket is that it ruins his support shots, iirc

Its a fun flavorful rule but its just piling on because Japan doesn’t really need it in order to survive or thrive, and usually when you try to depend on it it fails miserably in a gigantic blaze of glory.  I say try n dump it (we do in G42 G41 at times)!

@Herr:

@creeping-deth87:

chances are you’re going to lose the battleship you took to the channel in the opening attacks, which leaves your Baltic fleet pretty thin

You can also use the battleship for the SZ 111 attack and retreat it after one round. The British are then typically left with a damaged battleship that can’t escape because SZ 111 has no harbor.

That is usually where I send the German battleship, SZ 111. My attack on the Channel is all planes and maybe a couple of subs. Although, it has backfired on me when the fighter in Scotland doesn’t scramble and I get very good hits as Germany and end up sinking all the UK ships. Then my poor battleship is stuck all alone in SZ 111.
A good part of that scenario is it gives UK another target, but they have to commit planes to sink it (usually at least 2). That’s less UK planes bothering me somewhere else.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

@RedHunter:

@soulfein:

@Zhukov44:

Why bother if I’m not serious about the Sea Lion bluff and USA can buy bombers to reinforce London anyway?

to deny uk investing early in middle east, thus giving ita a real chance to make 30+ early on, instead of getting convoyd out of the game without doing anything at all.

plus the initial naval investment (ac+trans) actually helps ger against barb, enabling ger to have a solid stack drinking in novgorod g3.

Invest with what fleet lol? UK fleet should be gone turn 1. Its not that hard to sink it. Just use fighters and fleet correctly. And if you want to annoy the UK take Scotland turn 2. But build armor for Russia. 1 tech token and 4 armor…best German 1 build I have found for Alpha 3. You are not going to be able to pull off Sealion unless the UK is stupid and even if you pull it off you bring USA into the war a turn early for which Japan is not thankful to you. You won’t normally be able to hold the UK and build enough for Russia, depending on turn 1 USA builds. If they think you are going to sealion you can bet they are going to build to counter turn 1.

I have said this before and I will say it again. If France doesn’t fall and the UK has fleet left you can pretty much call the game turn 1. It digs Germany into a huge hole they have a hard time recovering from.

sigh those transports plus ac built in g1 is not for sealion it s for reinforcing barbarossa… with that build u can stack novgorod in g3 - fastest way to make money from barb with ger.

meant uk can invest in middle east (factories + newly purchased land/naval units), ofc ger should hit uk navy in g1 that s a no brainer.

taking scotland on turn2 doesnt help barbarossa at all.

slightly off topic, usa is already in war in 2nd round max if u want to threaten a pac win, so sealion doesnt interfere with that.

if allies think ger s going for sealion and build to counter it, that s all the better for axis, since it means barbarossa will be much stronger, because allies built against sealion, not barb.

oh thanks for the fast replys

and keep up the good work, alpha 3 looks really cool

ice

Thanks!

@Krieghund:

@moralecheck:

Really??  Scratches head Nova edition maybe??

Nope.

Well then…I’m off to edit Wikipedia.  :-D