2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?

Or the Allies let you use your fleet for fodder.

Honestly, I prefer to land in Russia and build more in SZ 2.  Then, if you move to cleave me in twain, I can attack from two directions for one round and retreat all to one sea zone or the other.

Then I get to strafe AND you are denied the use of your Luftwaffe (except the ones on the carrier) in hitting my fleet back.

Oob says that you roll a die, and that each bomber cannot do more ipc damage than production of territory. Maybe the explanation is confusing, but I would not say you must lose the max ipcs. I never played losing max ipcs in 2 years of face to face, and my mother language is spanish, so I suppose OOb are ok in that point. Anyway, a bit of logic says that even as confusing the sentence is, if you roll a die, that die must be used for determinig  the loss of ipc.

Oob rules, however, are wrong in rocket attacks, because they have a picture showing the Russia AA gun attacking Germany’s IC. This made me confusing until I read the FAQ, saying the picture was wrong. If I remember right, this is the only “big” mistake of rules.

It is not really an issue since Russia can land up to 2 ftrs on London before G goes.
Any Allied player that sees a bid of 1 trn to sz 5 and does not land at least 1 Russian ftr on London is asking to get diced by Germany.

London should have at least:  2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm, 3 ftrs, 1 bom
(bom can even be taken in the first wave of casualties)

With no aa hits for Ger, UK wins about 80% here.

With 4 ftrs, it is up to about 95%.

Yea, but odds are you are not going to do both unless you think you can win both.

Besides, it really isn’t very difficult to take out 2 submarines, a transport and a destroyer.  Even if Germany puts 2 fighters and a carrier in there, you can just use the Americans to hit them and then come in next round with England for a shore invasion of Germany, E. Europe or Karelia.  Or just forgo an invasion and stack troops from England into Norway after the battle.  No rule that you cannot move troops into a formerly enemy held sea zone and land them into friendly territory after a battle during non-combat.

They are nerfed in LHTR, but they still do better than regular bombers.  I’d still make sure I was extra aware of how many bombers my opponent had if they had this Technology:

Average IPC damage with regular bombers: 3.5IPC
Average IPC damage with heavy bombers: 5.5IPC

Chance of hitting with regular bombers on attack: 66.7%
Chance of hitting with heavy bombers on attack: 88.9%

True, the presence of a DST in a SZ that a SUB is passing through leads to “detection” of the SUB by the DST and combat results in the SZ.

Thus in NCM movement, a DST BLOCKS movement by a SUB through that SZ, since the SUB cannot NCM through it.

This poll and post is even more difficult to answer than the combat poll.  This one not only depends on prior combat, but also on the outcome of those combats.  Your planned NCM can be obsolete and/or foolhardy by the time it’s time to make it.

Like Switch says, the best laid plans last only until contact with the enemy. (paraphrased) :-D

So, like I mentioned before:

most people make up their USA strategy after J has made his first move:

@Axel:

A) if you do a Pearl attack: Most of the USA players would leave the Pacific and do a KGF…
B) if you don’t do a Pearl attack: Most of the USA players stay in the Pacific…

So, if you are J: make your discission: do you want to let USA stay in the Pacific? or do you want to let the USA mess with G?

and almost every post I read regarding this subject so far has made the USA strategy depending on J1!
So Japan has to make up his mind and in that way determines USA strategy most of the times…

I think this poll has made his point :-)