Question about combat/non-combat moves

Ask Joe. He has your answer.

Who says the fighters will be lost?  The fighters will prevent Germany from taking Egypt and after the UK kicks Germany out of Africa, Russia can move them back.

That’s intriguing. I know very little C/C++ programming, unfortunately, but I feel that such a project should be web-based anyways. The demands are not so great that they make a web application unsuitable speed-wise, and the limitations on platform compatibility really suck for application programming. I primarily work (and play) in linux. I have windows installed for the occasional Ravenshield game, but that is it. As a result, the mapview program isn’t much use to me, but I don’t mind having the board set up. In fact, I probably prefer it. In chess I always did better on a board because I could look over everything at once and plan simultaneously. In something like mapview or even in the PC CDROM version of A&A, there is too much moving around to see everything that you have to plan in geographical phases…I dunno. It’s not a really big deal either way.

Coincidentally I just landed a contract job to develop a web application for a company near me that requires a pretty large code base of user-related stuff, like accounts and cross linking accounts in a client/contractor relationship. I am well acquainted with the folks and am free to use the objective code that I write that is not central to the project. So, I can use a lot of the database access / user account related code towards this project once I am done the work project.

I am pretty excited about taking a stab at this.

Thanks again for your help and advice.

I don’t think russia should build 1-2 armor a turn. If they do, that’s 10 ipc’s if russia is earning 21 a turn, they can only build 2 armor and 3 infantry, it’s much better to build all iinfantry. Tanks are offencive but very expensive. If the allies can hold their ground, they will win since they have a better production. Using this logic, russia should go all defence. This is true since for a conventional win, axis has to kill russia. There are numerous explinations of why russia should not build many tanks. If you can hold eastern, and you still have your 4 tanks, and you want to take germany, AND japan doesn’t control the 3 territories around russia, then you can build tanks. Otherwise, 1-2 once might be ok (it might not be either) but 1-2 every turn is a waste of money. germany can just kill your expensive infantry. You can read don’s essay on purchacing. It does the math.

…OK maybe I should’ve said “…1-2 ARM per turn when possible…” if USSR is only making 21 IPCs a turn, then yeah, 1-2 ARM is gonna be a big burden. But with F/N under your belt & trading Ukraine each turn, 1-2 ARM each turn or so (allowing for occasional turns when all INF is necessary) is still a good idea. Without ARM you will have to rely entirely on your 2 FTRs for offensive firepower & will have to load up on a lot more INF to sustain attacks. Using only your original 4 ARM, you will have to preserve them and your ability to trade territory w/ Germany will be limited. I think its a good idea to buy a few ARM units along with your steady diet of INF…

Ozone27

add the person that got caputered moves down his marker on his/her IPC chart

but I still think you should go after india first

but you the gut who wrote the strat? :-?

Well I do admit it sometimes tough to land fighters from different territories after a major battle. The Battle of the Atlantic with the Luftwaffe is a perfect example of this. I this case, rather the assign movement points to each plane, I’ll probably let them land at optimal range.