Germany dows on russia, cruiser on transport, does it stop it loading up?

@marshmallow-of-war Nice! Sometimes unexpected things develop in this game. Good for the French! They deserve some credit, every once in a while.

I see what you guys are saying and I agree. I’ve been kicking around the idea to replace the $5 NO for Japanese control of Borneo, Celebes, Java and Sumatra with the following:

$5 for Japanese control of Okinawa, Formosa, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Palau, Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands. This occurs when Japan is at war with the Western Allies. So if UK and/or ANZAC declare war on Japan, with USA still neutral, then Japan will collect this NO.
I’ve also modified the $5 NO for Japanese control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands. I changed it to $1 for control of each island.

I also removed the US NO of $10 for US control of Eastern US, Central US and Western US because I think that falls in the same category as the DEI NO. The continental US is worth $42 to the US all together, has all their main manufacturing plants and includes two Victory Cities, one of which is their capital. That’s more than enough incentive to not lose any of those three territories. However, I didn’t want to just take away US NO money, so I replaced it with the following:

$1 each for Allied control of the following: Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. This occurs when US is at war with Japan.

So you see, there is still the possibility for the US to make the full $10 in NO money, plus 3 of the Japanese Islands are worth $1 which will be an extra bonus. Also, since 3 of the islands are already US owned, the US can still collect $3 when at war with Japan but before their offensive gets moving.
I thought that might do something to get a little more action in these valueless islands. I wonder if I ought to change Japan’s because once the US is in the war, Japan’s NO is really easy to disrupt because the Marshall Islands are close to the US and they are unguarded. Do you think that I should remove the Marshalls from Japan’s NO?

@Spendo02:

Much of that assertion is based on play testing of the Allies moving to defend Hawaii in the first round.

Obviously that changes if you withdraw because the only trade would be the starting fleet off Hawaii, which easily translates to a strong consolidated navy off of Western US.

That is why I posed the question regarding what would be an Allied response to a J1 DOW that stages in SZ6 and paves the way to sack Honolulu on J2 as I was not sure if that would be an experienced US player’s response….

…My standard play has been to defend Hawaii at all costs which included Anzac’s involvement (to see what the board looks like) while purchasing US1 SS and Bombers.  I never considered the US option to give it up and consolidate - which appears to be a better and stronger play…

We have a few regular and experienced players and now that we have played Global enough times America’s response to Japan positioning it’s fleet in range of Hawaii is always to just run away and let them have it.

Bringing back the Pacific fleet is always the stronger move because if Japan keeps sending fleet to Hawaii then it’s going the wrong way. Not being in striking distance of DEI and India means that the UK will start slowly building a non-trivial fleet of ships and will be making 30+ IPCs.

Meanwhile America is out pretty much nothing but a few IPCs and can just casually build boats and watch. The second Japan leaves they just retake Hawaii with almost no effort.

Then u have a better chance at taking Finland if guys are left behind.  I’ve never done it but I missed a perfect chance at doing it once.  Germany had no transports and the whole air force was out of range.  They were busy taking out the uk navy and the us navy.

I was just adding ideas to the thread.  It’s only 7 ipcs and it makes Germany have to think of different scenarios to defend as opposed to pure offensive.

I used ROTP to get my BA with a major in military history, now 2LT with the Armour Corps.

@Variable:

Is this because the German transports are considered part of the attack (amphibious assault)?

Yes.  Transports that unload for an amphibious assault do so in the Combat movement phase (ending their movement for that turn), and so they are considered part of the combat force.

Zallomallo is right.  Because the sub submerged, it no longer blocks the amphibious assault and cannot kill the transport.  There was no reason for the sub to submerge, however, as the planes could no longer hit it.  If the sub did not submerge, the transport could retreat, assuming it had somewhere to retreat to (if not, it would be lost).

IMO, if transports or any other ship enters SZ with enemy sub, sub should always have the opyion of suprize attack shot. Thats the way i play it.