ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC

@shade840 said in pro neutral territories:

Example: allies attack Iraq, a pro axis neutral would that set off the true neutrals? appreciate ur help

No, an Allies attack on pro-axis Iraq affects the status of Iraq only.

There is a special rondel shaped land-bridge that connects the non-island of Ireland to Scotland.  But, not in real life.  So you can drive across that, though why is a different question.

However, the Aleutian Islands are islands–you can’t drive there as I once allowed the crew to do.  Which makes it especially annoying for Japan to take, since it requires an amphib to regain your NO.  HTH

That happened in the actual war at one point, intentionally rather than because the CV was sunk I mean. USS Enterprise had a broken (front?) elevator and couldn’t land planes rapidly enough so they landed on Henderson Field in the Solomons campaign.

While it can be expensive to send just air units against ground units, sometimes it is warranted.
In a recent game of 1942 2nd edition, Germany was really giving Russia a hard time and Russia was having trouble having enough troops and tanks to retake their own territories. The US and UK had built up sizable air forces so they took turns attacking the German infantry and tanks so on Russia’s turn, they could simply move in and take the territories thus improving their income.
While the US/UK did lose some expensive air units, it worked out very well as Russia was able to roll up a lot of territory and Germany just couldn’t produce enough to reverse the tide. Russian tanks would blitz 2 territories while Germany could only take the 2nd territory back in combat. Then here would come those dang Brit or American planes again.

Attacking Russia as Japan always seemed to me as an operation that looked sweeter then it tasted.  I struggled for a long time to find a useful application of the Japan attacking Russia operation but in most cases I couldn’t see a possibility where the resources dedicated to it was the best possible outcome for the situation.

I certainly think there are options I didn’t think of, but if Germany needs the assistance from Japan to pressure Russia into submission I think there is a good sign that Japan could be dominating in the Pacific.  This is a discussion thread all on it’s own so I won’t continue…

@calvinhobbesliker:

In some Guadalcanal games, they switched the US and Japanese cruisers. Thus, we had an orange US cruiser and a Green Japanese cruiser

Wow, I never even noticed that before. But I dont have any of the green Japanese cruisers. Very strange.

@McLovin1985:

With the new rules it seems to me that an airbase in Korea would be the way to go every game, stationing 3 fighters in Korea and at least 3 in Japan if theres any sense that an attack on any vessels or Japan itself is imminent. That would give you an extra 6 fighters to defend SZ6. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I did that in a game last week. Worked great. The U.K. attacked my Japanese fleet first and then a small ANZAC fleet did the same on their turn all in the same round. Wiped them all out with small losses.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)