ANZAC Navy vs ANZAC Island Trading

@MM1940

Well done!

@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)

Well, the name of the game is Axis, and Allies Don’t Get to Make Moves

Yes, I’d let them remain Dutch too.  One of the points of this house rule idea is to give the Dutch their own units, to rectify their rather odd status of having their own map roundel but no actual combat forces – so if the Dutch units were converted into plain old UK or ANZAC units when one of those countries lands in the DEI, it would spoil the fun.  And from a historical point of view, it’s likewise accurate to keep them Dutch: the Dutch components of ABDACOM remained Dutch during the DEI campaign, even though they were part of a coalition.

I also agree that the Dutch infantry units should gallantly fight and die where they stand.  As Marshall Mac Mahon famously said at Sevastopol in 1855, “J’y suis, j’y reste!” – here I am and here I will stay.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

@johnathanpb:

To sum up then, although the sub is a combat vessel, it cannot control an occupied sea zone on its own.

Correct.  Subs alone may nearly always be ignored.  The only exception is that unaccompanied transports may not conduct an amphibious assault if there are enemy subs in the sea zone.

@johnathanpb:

A german destroyer in the water here, however, would need to be engaged as entering the sea zone would then be a combat move. Do I have this right?

Yes.

@special:

That’s indeed weird!

(and if something inapproriate appeared there, i’d guess single posts would be deleted, not a whole topic)

…
I think the japanese did it  :-D

Yeah. In the “Italy a bad design” thread, miamibeach and I were having a political argument, so IL deleted our posts ABOUT POLITICS. The thread was left intact besides those posts

I had introduced an error in my Italian roundels (I had my Red and Green swapped).  Reposted via above link.

-Boxcars