ANZAC Navy vs ANZAC Island Trading

@oysteilo:

@Young:

@oysteilo:

What do you guys think? I am starting to think it is okey. � In most cases the Scotland fighter lives and the gib fighter can defend as well. This means if London buys 6 inf and 1plane you have like 11 inf/mech and 3 planes (2).if everything goes poorly buy 9 inf. Why not?

What about the UK keeping all their income turn 1?

If there’s no Sealion threat… buy all the fighters you like turn 3, but if there’s a Sealion threat… than buy all the infantry you like turn 2.

I think the problem with that is, if Germany does go for sea lion you are only allowed to place 10 units in London, You need more than that

True

the thing is, not everyone has their sea lion strategy down yet as some people still defend UK/try to maintain a naval instead of taking UK then abandoning it to race Moscow, before UK is liberated and USA becomes a threat to europe.

When I play it is easy to crush UK then turn around drive the russians out of the balkans back to moscow before france/italy/germany is seriously threatened. Once Russia is done, the game is super over.

There are two problems about sea lion.

I don’t mind UK getting conquered. Just if UK gets liberated… it should recover faster. The complex being nerfed to 3 combined with the crappy income generated… is really rough. I find that you can pack UK men on USA boats and drop them off the next turn is better than UK buying their own naval… you actually get more boots on the ground per turn much quicker. Or you can use UK’s 3 production a turn to buy naval pieces for USA or if germany is buying lots of air perhaps UK will buy naval pieces to protect USA naval (so usa can focus on dropping big payloads instead of carriers) and place a few men in africa to ship around (assuming you still have the transport down there).

So with both allied and axis strategies not being fully developed by a majority of the community… the game balance itself is skewed.

Allies have always been harder to play as they require more planning in order to maximize the amount of men you drop per turn into europe or plan ahead and move pieces to wise places in the pacific.
~
Also countering barborossa has a few school of thoughts. 1) archangel shuffle defense 2) france first 3) shutting down italy.

I do feel that cutting the germans out of Norway/Sweden/Finland is good start for UK. no point trading men with germany before taking that out that production.

Maybe he’s tidy and he wants to put the right units in the right box after the game is finished. If so: draw a small dot on the bottom of each unit.

… not for both East and West of course  :lol:

I know my brother didn’t after I took the solomans killed his navy and left some subs to convoy his ass.

@mantlefan:

It’s a different situation becuase Non UK/ANZAC allies can only move in after Japan has.

This is not exactly true.  It’s a different situation because they aren’t neutral territories.  Allied powers other than UK/ANZAC (when at war) can move into Dutch territories under Dutch control - they just can’t take control of them.

Zeno games had all the vichy french rules in their World at War game like 10 or 12 yrs ago. some suggestions posted here are almost identical. Search zenogames.com. i think they may be stiil around.

I feel that the potshot rule adds most to gameplay. (also blocking makes no sense)

Subs, the AA of the sea  :wink:

@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.