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

I wonder if it is worth taking Norway as USA early on, with USSR assistance in taking Finland. A few things remain unclear:

Does this make USA ineffective against Japan Should USA follow up with a Normandy landing? Or something else?

A few things seem to work though. You can hold Moscow G6, doubtless in part because air can reach Moscow via Finland. Also killing the Scandinavian troops reduces the assault. If Germany kills the USN with the Luftwaffe, it loses too many planes to support the Moscow assault. If it doesn’t kill the USN, it needs to defend Leningrad against an amphibious assault which ties up a bunch of troops.

Correct, but no interpretation is needed.

At the moment the decision where to land has to be made, the scrambled fighters are in the seazone where they scrambled to.
So it is one move from there.

@rulebook:

After all combat is completed, each surviving scrambled air unit must return to the territory from which it was scrambled. If
the enemy has captured that territory, the unit can move 1 space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier.
If no such landing space is available, the unit is lost.

(The way I play Germany:)
Create 1 huge army that marches into Russia and arrives in Bryansk G5, ready to attack Moscow G6, together with purchases from G5 (aircraft in Berlin/fast in Ukraine). Purchases in G1/2/3/4/5 are always aimed at maximally reinforcing this marching ‘deathball’, like ghr and Demandr described.

Russia has no choice but to surrender Leningrad+Ukraine and Germany should gladly take them with some token forces (1 to 2 inf + air).

What the Allies CAN do about this (very generally speaking because of all the variables): Russia retreats into Moscow while building a lot of inf + ART(!). RAF helps to defend it. UK + USA getting strong at Gibraltar/London + Middle East and, very important, setting up ‘bomber command’. Comes G6 Germany cannot attack Moscow because it is too heavily defended. Luftwaffe is tied into Russia (making life easier for the allies preparing for DDay) because otherwise Russia begins counter-attacking, ending the German presence there. Germany can take Caucasus + Stalingrad but NOT in force because then the Russians can break out where it is most effective, attacking and destroying the German army defending Bryansk if there is still some there. If there is not, because all the Germans are in Caucasus/Stalingrad, what is to stop Russia from retaking Leningrad, Ukraine and all those juicy eastern-european countries? Nada.
Too bad this game has no ‘out-of-supply’ rules as this is exactly what happend in Russia, starving the massive German army in Stalingrad.

In the pacific, the USA + ANZAC have Allied task number 1: prevent an Axis (Pac 6VC) win. This does not mean Japan has to be killed (though you can certainly try), but Hawai + Sydney must be held. If Japan crushes India this is an easy job. If Japan clearly invests in taking Hawai/Sydney (luckily the USA goes after Japan so can react), the task is more difficult, but India will be safe  longer and can even become strong strong strong if Japan focuses too much on Hawai. Most Japanese players I have seen, invest heavily into taking India and Middle East and THEN they try to take Hawai/Sydney. This gives the USA breathing space to invest around 20% per turn into the Pacific, spending 80% of its income into Europe. By the time Japan is ready to invest into taking Hawai the USA can switch to near 100% into Pacific (depending on the Japanese investments) without a problem because its forces in Europe are already massive.

Note that I am using the LL system in my games (and posts) to predict/dictate what major powers must do to stay alive. The LL system is usually pretty accurate and if the dice screw you up, well, then it’s the dice, not strategy, that cost you the game.

I like the ANZAC  Brazil thing – takes some resources and a lot of time – but my Kiwi’s usually are stranded anyway ----
You will prob. have the extra 2 income all game.

The real reason NOT to do it is to deny the USA the spot.

As USA move ground troops down to Central America before a DOW
As soon as you are in the war Pounce on Venezuela
( fighting 2 troops for 2 income is the best ROI you will find )
Next turn Activate Brazil

…oops just saw the hitch ALL neutrals go pro-axis!

(We house rule neutral blocks so if a SA neutral is taken only the SA neutrals change status - same for european and Middle Eastern blocks)

@otahere34:

This is off subject but has to do with the fact of the U.S. building a minor IC in korea. Can they move within striking distence of that when there not at war even though Japan can not end movement withing 2 zones of alaska or the western U.S.?

Yes.  The United States is only prohibited from being next to Japanese soil in the Pacific.  If they want to leave their fleet next to SZ 6, but not in SZ 6, they may do so.

Hey Jen, I know what you mean about those fluky AA Gun successes.  I once had a Sealion go very bad for me because of that.  I went in with 2 fighters, 3 tacs and 1 bomber.  The dang British AA Gun killed 1 fighter, 2 tacs and the bomber.  2/3 of my airforce whacked out just like that.

So the way you guys play Japan is more or less as fodder for the Allies so less pressure is on Germany/Italy so that they might win in Europe?  You don’t try to have Japan win on the Pacific side?  Some people have said that if USA goes mostly for Europe, then it is somewhat easy for Japan to get their 6 victory cities and win the game for the Axis.  If USA goes all Pacific, then Japan is probably doomed anyway and best choice would probably be to try and tie up US forces as long as possible so Germany can take down Russia.  However, if you see US going heavy in the Atlantic, don’t you want to try to win with Japan?

Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.

Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.

One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.

These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.

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.  :-)