MOVED: 4 players

@AndrewAAGamer I’m not suggesting players should only buy battleships; I’m just saying they still have value in the game. My personal preference is for a balanced navy. While I still buy 3-4 times more carriers, I like BB for amphibious assaults and to absorb the first hits in any battle.

…And if you’ve never gone up against a misguided player, you really need to meet my friends. :grin:

@daefish:

Okay so if I land US trooper on a land zone that has Italian troops on it and one german soldier but I’m not at war with Germany, this is not a valid combat move until I’m at war with Germany.

If US troops attacked an Italian territory that also has German units in it, you would basically be declaring war on Germany at that point. In land battles, all Allied units defend together so there is no way not to have war between US and Germany.
I think that going strictly by the rules you are supposed to declare war on a nation before making your combat move, but I think most players simply take the combat move as the DOW without making a formal declaration.
You have an interesting situation there with the US being at war with Japan and Italy but not Germany. I can’t help but wonder how well that would work if you kept it up, but I don’t think it would work out. Germany would simply put an extra infantry in each Italian territory and you would never be able to fight the Italians without attacking Germany as well. Then again, in most of our games, Germany and Italy are pretty separated. Italy usually goes up against the Brits in the Med and Africa while Germany dives into Russia.

@DutchmanD:

Oh, this is no more ahistoric than Italy being able to take Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and the rest of the Mediteranean when they could even beat the Greek army with their entire military. Not to mention one of the most significant ahistorical flaws of G40, which is that the French troops in Aremain loyal to the Allies for some reason, not Axis Vichy…  and, if they are not at war, why are they killing Brits mercilessly on Italy 1? Don’t get me started on the whole “orginally owned” territory nonesense either, the Germans can buld a major IC in Norway and the UK can build one in Malaya, but the Japanses cannot build one in Shanghai; the Japanese were the first to build factories in Shanghai around 1900 after the First Sino-Japanese War, and by 1937, when they fully officially occupied the city, it had more manufacturing power than the rest of Southeast Asia combined!  Dice Gods forbid the Japs actually being able to make a major IC in an actual manufacturing center that they originally created        :wink:

Ahistoric… hmpf!  Nothing like an instant 10 tnps build by the Germans and the dissappearance of essentially the entire Royal Navy in the Spring of 1940 to make you give up on all the historical aspects of the game we love…
 
All good points, but directed more at game mechanics than historical accuracy.  I agree that the production cycle is not accurate to real life, it should take 3-4 turns for a BB to be built, but the game is not made for that scale.  All units you can build are placed almost immediately.  Both the US and UK fleets are severely nerfed, most likely in order to give the axis a chance that they didn’t have in RL.

As for the other issues, I understand why Vichy is not in the game, you have to draw the line somewhere and Larry choose to add France but have them be inert, while China is also hamstrung.  Otherwise you get a community of people clamoring on the BBS from Bulgaria wanting special Bulgarian rules or some other nonsense.

I have played a game where Japan could build a major in China and it did seem overpowered.  It was maxed on production and China was quickly swallowed up.  It took massive US naval builds and tenuous fighting from India to stall the Japs.  Japan was also able to not build many trns in that game and still concentrate on the Pacific islands.

Thanks for going over the Abandon London moves again James.  One would assume they became even more potent in A3, have you had the opportunity to try it yet?  It’s playing the allies like the Axis, creating the initiative and then keeping it long enough to sack Italy…hopefully.

Japan would have to declare war at the beginning (before any units are moved) of its combat movement phase. So it would not be allowed to go through sz8, it would have to stop and battle that DD.

Russia building a massive airforce then sinking the home fleet of Japan(mostly) allowing the USA to pretty much walk into the Japan and take it. Btw…Russia didn’t share this plan with the other allies they just did it lol.

The important thing to understand about mechanized infantry movement is that they move in exactly the same way that tanks do, except that they can’t blitz without a tank.  In most cases, the confusion on this issue comes from the definition of the term “blitz”.

Many people define “blitz” as any two-space movement by a tank, but that’s incorrect.  A blitz movement is a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory.  Only the first territory is “blitzed”.  The second one is not, regardless of its status.

So, mechanized infantry may only make a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory when paired with a tank.  Any other two-space movement that a tank can legally make can also be made by a mechanized infantry without an accompanying tank.  This means that mechanized infantry may always move two friendly spaces alone in noncombat movement, and they may also move two spaces alone in combat movement if the first territory is friendly.

This is the ultimate A&A.

Hope for 1941 and 1942 setups… :-D