ANZAC capital ships?

If ANZAC can afford to pull this off, then this shows that Japan is not putting pressure on ANZAC like it should be. The issue with ANZAC is that it is forced to play a defensive role for someone. ANZAC can make some offensive moves in early game if Japan doesn’t J1 on US. It’s navy supports the US fleet, it’s air power is supporting UK or USSR, and it’s land forces are defending the homeland. If ANZAC is able to afford bombers and carriers, either the Allies are in a major win swing or Japan ain’t doing its job.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Oh boy, you had to bring that one up again. We had a lengthy debate over that one. In the end it was proven (and certified) that you could indeed park your Japanese fleet in SZ 26.
Goofy=Yes
Illegal=No

It’s no longer up for debate. That one is settled.

Hi GHG, sorry for starting this and I accept the forums statement of beeing legal.
(Sidenote, at the same moment we established a house rule that says, the Japanese cannot do that on our table!  :-P)

I think it is all about who has the ipcs to spare from existing factory builds. That may be ANZAC, Russia, UK or none of them. It depends on what is happening in each game.

The 3 unit max ANZAC build in Australia can be a constraint if meeting national objectives in the east Indies, in which case a second factory is an idea and options are limited. In such circumstances I have started building bombers, as J is likely to already be on the back foot at land and sea, but might look for a second factory option in future.

@Cow:

they should have kept this game simpler so there wouldn’t be 200+ pages of FAQ

That’s what the 1942 edition is for Cow.

And if that’s too tricky to wrap your mind around there is always 1941 for you.

Some of us like the relative complexity.  :wink:

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.

In my current game, I will use the Aussies to take the Caroline islands so the united states can then stage their airforce on the island be closer to the action quicker. ANZAC also has an aircraft carrier so combined with the us fleet that will be arriving, tha Japanese will be nervous.

@BadSpeller:

All powers may roll for technology. China will only benefit from advanced artillery, if they have it. If China acquires an AA gun then that would be 2 other techs, rockets and radar. It sucks that the research token way is gone. In global we buy research dice, meaning if you lose, your money is gone.

So it’s back to the Revised edition way?