Any need for French units beyond the setup?

@allister

yep Infantry a land unit. Can only be placed where there’s a complex.
Can’t place them directly on a Transport either. Has to be in the Territory where the complex is

@seancb:

We aren’t really seeking any realism. We used our imagination on this and simply like to say “It’s 1944, where’s D-Day?” and throw other such taunts as appropriate for the Axis or Allies. We’ll just continue with our 6 month system for simplicity. […] At the end of the day it doesn’t matter it just makes it fun for us to imagine where we are in the war.

One advantage of knowing what year of the war you’re in at any given time is that, if your game includes any house-ruled Otto Skorzeny-type German infiltrators wearing American uniforms, it will influence the answer to the identification question “Who won the World Series last year?”  :-D

Come to think of it, I think that a casting error (similar to the one in the original Guadalcanal printing) actually did once produce some “green German” infantry units, which are now prized by collectors.

@cyanight:

That might be the reason Harris designed it so the Flying Tigers stay in the mainland of China. If Hainan was labeled a Chinese territory then the whole rule on transports could become an issue as well as the Flying Tiger being able to attack units in seazones. The way the game is setup the plane is penned inside of China with the exception of Burma and Kwangtung.And if the Chinese could load onto transports it would be easy to use them with USA since their turns are back to back.

Good theory – that may very well be the explanation.  I’d always wondered why Hainan was incorrectly represented on the game map (from the point of view of which territories were Chinese when Japan started conquering them in 1931).  Formosa and Korea I could understand, since China ceded Formosa to Japan under the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki and recognized Korean independence (which proved to be short-lived, since the Russians and the Japanese both had territorial ambitions there) under the same treaty.

Captain walker, I’m not trashing this strategy, but wouldn’t an extra carrier for each power be more helpful, and give you more mobility for roughly the same cost?  Although an English AB on Gib, and an American AB on Morocco sounds intriguing giving you a really good air def for your transport navies(s) it sounds very costly. I’m not sure how that helps you when you move to Norway or deeper into the Med though because you would be leaving the cover of those bases, and the Luftwaffe could hit you then.

I could see it helping though if you build your fleet(s) then next turn move to Gib and drop AB(s) on the same turn so you could get immediate air cover. You wouldn’t have to wait for a carrier built that turn to catch up, but you would still need to bulk-up the navy before you move towards your objectives so I’m not seeing a major benefit for spending 30 IPCs on AB(s). Sounds like you may be going light on your navy builds for protection of your transports, and are compensating with the AB’s but the cost of the ABs is what is causing the weaker navy builds to start with.

I guess it would help to shuck-shuck through Gib though needing fewer naval units to protect your ships off Gib. I can see this would hold off the Luftwaffe for some time as well so there are some pro"s and con’s to say the least.

Garg, I think you should petition government for a degree course on A&A. I would cross the Atlantic and sign up. I need an  excuse to visit North America.

oh ok

I tried that Med strategy that I posted earlier in this thread on Saturday, and it worked great. I caught my opponent by surprise by being so aggressive and it messed up all his plans (what ever they were). I will report later.

@allweneedislove:

@Kobu:

Try it with the approved setup.

all the games i have been playing have been.

You’ve clearly been playing with the proposed changes to the Med. Apples and oranges and I’ve addressed both.