Should Imperious make a map for this?

@Wizard well the link is close to the first page, are you looking for Barons version? let me know

Tjoek where are you?

Danke Herr Rommel.

I was mainly wondering because I watched a Young Grasshopper video and he said that sometimes there are misprints.
This will definitely help with my 1939 Europe game I made up using the European side of the 1942.2 map.
Thanks for the quick response!

Very good idea, personally I love the one-part maps!!

Okay thanks, P@nther. I was really hoping for a detailed proper birds-eye-view map file.

@Sean.C:

@adaptation:

I don’t know why people say Pearl Harbor cannot be done anymore - don’t forget that the Japanese sub is now absolutely untouchable with the new rules and can always go for Pearl Harbor. You can get 3 fighters(9), 1 bomber(4), 1 cruiser(3), 1 sub(2) and 1 AC(1) (grand total of 19) VS sub(1),destroyer(2),AC(2),fighter(4) (Grand total of 9).

Over 95% chance of victory with average IPC losses around 16-18 depending on if you chose to lose a bomber or fighter after your sub.

Then you end up defending with 2 fighters ( 8 ), 1 cruiser (3), and 1 AC (2) (grand total of 13) VS 2 fighters (6), 1 bomber (4), 1 destroyer (2), and 1 battleship (4) (grand total of 16).

Over 95% chance of losing your Japanese fleet with an average IPC loss around 18-20 for America depending on if they chose to kill a fighter or bomber after their destroyer.

Plus US player submerges the sub right at the beginning of the J1 attack, allowing it to participate on the counter on US2…

Then you have to consider that UK1 has almost a 70% chance of wiping out the other half of your japanese fleet

You’re goal here is India, not America.  The only reason people did it before was it was a slam dunk with no losses most of the time with units you didn’t need for India anyhow.  It’s a completely different story now.  Now your looking at the annihilation of a majority of your fleet that you actually need to help take India.

Yup, if the UK attacked SZ37 then Japan has to wipe out any remaining UK fleet from that attack and get the UK transports as quickly as possible. Attacking the US fleet almost removes Japan from the Pacific after US1.

@UrJohn:

I have read some criticism of the standard 9/10 VC victory condition, and it made me think about the victory cities.

Here’s what I came up with:
–The VCs don’t matter at all unless it’s the 9th for the Axis or 10th for the Allies for the standard victory or unless it’s the 13th one for the total victory. The IPCs, Industrial Complexes, and Capitals attached to the spaces matter, but the VCs themselves don’t.
–That last VC means everything.
–Players don’t necessarily worry about every single VC. Whereas, in the real war, both sides were majorly concerned with protecting all of those cities that belonged to their sides.
–Players will sometimes make otherwise ridiculous attacks on a VC when success in the attack automatically wins the game.

VCs on the 1st Edition of the game were useless, no one plays for the all-VC victory and the Axis could only get the 9 VC by conquering Russia, which pretty much meant game over since the Allies would concede at that point.
But on 2nd Edition, with Honolulu as VC the scenario completely changes for Axis. If the Axis retain Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai and Manila, while conquering Honolulu, Calcutta and Leningrad at the end of the US turn, they win without having to conquer Moscow. This makes the 9 VC scenario a lot more attractive for Axis - specially when the Allies go KGF and leave Honolulu up for Japan to grab.
And you need to worry about all the VCs - otherwise the US can land and liberate one for a single turn and deny the Axis victory.

@knp7765:

In the latest Alpha+3 rules, Larry changed the SBR rules for escorts and interceptors.

This game came out 10 months after that 10/10/11 post on his site, so it has changed again. That’s one thing that makes this game frustrating - it’s not like chess where the rules have been around for hundreds of years. The rules are still fluid and keep changing.

@UrJohn:

I was just rounding to 1.

Agreed!