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

@klykke89 I was confused too. The rulebook clearly states that planes can fly over enemy territories as if they were neutral, and that AAA guns can only shoot at planes when the territory the AAA gun is in is being attacked.

However I have seen some house rules that actually allows AAA guns to fire at enemy planes that fly over the territory they are in.

I think that is cool, but I also think that gives the AAA gun much more power and value and that they should cost more than 5 IPC if that is the case.

Anzac capital ships are great if you can afford them, but priority for ground troops, transports and fighters! Anzac fighters are great for defending island, supporting Calcutta, China and even Moscow!

@WILD:

@weddingsinger:

I usually play as Axis, but in the past the worst problem for me is if the U.S. can gather its starting assets together, maybe a US1 buy, too, all of Japan’s starting isn’t enough to fend it off, so you either have to abandon SZ6, or overspend to keep up, which leaves the money islands vulnerable.

Its why, as Japan, I now prefer J1 and taking out Hawaii and Philippines.  At most you lose a sub, putting the U.S. behind for a change while your other assets shield your transports from the weak Anzac fleet.

I agree, but as discussed I generally do a hit and run on the Hawaiian fleet, and end up at Wake with about 1/2 the IJN. I typically lose a sub and dd in the sz26 battle, and also my dd blocker left in sz26 in the US counter attack for a total of 3 ships (1ss, and 2 dds). I still think it is well worth doing though. Hitting both sz26, and sz35 will kill off 47 IPCs worth of US navy, plus the Phil ftr making it 57 IPCs in navy/air. That is more then the spending allowance of the US in the first turn (52 IPCs). These are units that would get away in a J2 or later attack in most cases. Then add the Brit BB and territorial gains and yea it is a pretty damn strong opening move.

Sucker punching the US in the face causes some issues for them, and they will be torn on what side to build on. If they go Pac they are way behind so can’t challenge the Japanese for several turns. They would need to spend most of their income in the Pac for 2-3 turns just to get to even par w/Japan (and the Germans will love it). Yea they can probably send the home fleet up to Hawaii on the first turn as long as the Anz backs them up, but they really can’t do anything once they get there. Maybe move to the safety of Queensland and wait for their supply chain to catch up. The Japanese can just hop scotch to Caroline’s then probably to Philippines where they set up a defensive posture (maybe merging some more of the Imperial navy/air force).

I don’t see the US sending the home fleet over to Europe (something they do on occasion), because then there is no chance in the Pac. So if they want to go Europe they pretty much have to start from scratch because they only have a cruiser and transport. So going Europe means the Japanese don’t have to worry for a long time.

Oh BTW if you really want to F with the US have the Germans hit the US 101 mini fleet G1 with a sub (when you know there will be a J1 attack). If you get lucky the cruiser may not even get to fire, and the transport sinks too.

Very nice idea, will try it out as Axis this year

@JDOW:

@taamvan:

Malaya is too vulnerable, and it takes too long to secure.   HK is far stronger for your later-game strategic defense (free NB), hidden square)

The opposite is the case for Malaya. Yes, it is vulnerable but strategically Malaya is the by far most powerful IC Japan can place.

I think you’re taking FIC as a given there. I can’t see how the Malaya IC is more powerful than FIC. Doesn’t need a naval base built to reach Calcutta?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37883.0

@pokemaniac:

The big issue is ANZAC effectively producing at Persia. In any game ANZAC is extremely vital in wearing down Japan. The US can can-open destroyers screens and allow ANZAC to get through to take islands or attack small Japanese navies, and ANZAC ships and air are also crucial to the defense of the US fleet. Even if the US goes 100% Pacific, if it gets virtually 0 support from ANZAC (which will be the case if ANZAC is building in Persia) it will be hard pressed to advance on Japan.

Even ignoring the value of ANZAC’s units against Japan, the biggest problem is that ANZAC just can’t build well at Persia. If ANZAC is going for a Persia factory, they are going to be making 12 IPCs a turn after Japan declares war since they won’t be trading islands. That is 3 ANZAC mech in Persia. ANZAC units can only help to defend UK stacks, as opposed to UK units which can be used offensively as well. ANZAC also can’t afford to build 3 fighters in Persia ever, unlike the UK. Those fighter builds are often crucial to holding Moscow, while also giving the UK a lot of flexibility in the Mid East.

The UK can just build a factory in Egypt, but planes there take 2 turns to get to Moscow which can really be a problem.

In short I just don’t see any benefit in taking away a prime factory location from the UK and giving it to ANZAC who can barely make 3 cheap units a turn there. This also of course essentially removes ANZAC from the Pacific theatre, where it is sorely needed.

Brazil is the same concept. ANZAC Brazilians can’t really be used offensively anywhere, unlike a US or UK controlled Brazil. Plus it is sending ANZAC transports a long way from the front that they are most effective on.

ANZAC planes in Europe could be helpful, but by the time they could get to Europe it is unlikely that they’d have much to can-open and they would be spending a useless 3 turns or so in transit as opposed to 3 turns being used against Japan in some fashion.

Nice ideas, but I find ANZAC to just be best used to pester Japan and defend Australia if needed.

I completely agree with this, although I have never tried ANZAC in Persia. To me it seems like a hassle.
1. you need to protect UK transport from beeing blown up by italy 1. Does this imply no taranto?
2. ANZAC can activate Persia end of R2, This means factory R3 and units deployed end of round 4.
3. I like to have a UK factory there and shuffle UK fighters to Moscow easily if need be. Basically ANZAC units are not doing anything useful before R5ANZAC. Does not seem worthwhile to me. It is a nice noval, idea though

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?

Wooo! Boys! start loading your American AA Guns into trns and taking friendly nuetrals!