ANZAC Navy vs ANZAC Island Trading

Pretty much all Japan can do against a concerted effort - keep em distracted and hope Germany can win.

Better to prepare for a counter attack where you won’t have to deal with fighters in the battle and coastal bombardments. So no defending the atlantic wall in this version of the game.

I think this take is mostly accurate but sometimes Allies have so many transports and (UK) fighters that they might be able to hold Normandy (especially in cases when the bulk of the Luftwaffe is far away).  In cases like that, it might behoove Germany/Italy (let’s say they are defending Germany, West Germany, and France from a big Allied fleet) to move the France stack to Normandy.  If the USA force is relatively small and the UK force is not enough to take Normandy, a 1-2 attack would be costly and risky.  Landing in Holland instead is not always an option, since it’s adjacent to Normandy and W Germany and within tank/mech range of Germany).

In circumstances like that I’ve had success stacking Normandy with a combined German/Italian stack.

@SouthsideCH:

As far as taking over friendly neutrals, why is Anzac not allowed to? Is this a error in the rulebook?
…
So it is an error of omission?

There is no exception for ANZAC regarding non-combat-moving into friendly neutrals.

What do you have in mind?

(ANZAC is not part of the Europe ruleset, so they are not listed in the Europe only rules. They are of course part of the Pacific (and Global) ruleset.)

I tend to think the best solution to SBR is making interceptors and escorts roll at 2. Otherwise it’s too difficult to defend against SBR. Sure a large escort force nullifies the defence but it also ties up a lot of planes on SBR.

This fix is also in Balanced Mod.

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

shove a carrier in 109

@SS:

:cry: KISS  :cry:

Said otherwise, to lose IPCs in Convoy Disruption Phase, the enemy need to capture one of your originaly held valueless Islands AND put in the surrounding SZ a single submarine (-2 IPCs) or warship (-1 IPC).
Those penalties cannot be cumulative, even if there is more units in SZ, it is either -2 IPCs or -1 IPC, no more no less.

For instance, once Guam taken by Japan and having as many IJN Subs as you want in the surrounding SZ of Guam, it will cost 2 IPCs to US until all IJN Subs move elsewhere or are sunk by Allies.

A different NO, simpler but probably costlier to original owners, based on my suggestion made earlier:
All valueless Island groups controled by at least one stationed unit (Ground, Air, operational Air Base or Naval Base) gives 2 IPCs.
But cost 1 IPC to any original ex-owner, this penalty applied during Convoy Disruption Phase of this ex-owner.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1355089#msg1355089

Hi Ike.
Territory has to be worth 3, yes. Also, in 2nd Edition rules, only the original owner can make
a Major on a territory worth 3 or more. So they couldn’t, no.