Transporter, battle with planes

what Hobbes is saying is 100% true.  But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia.  Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak.  Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.

@EskimoJack:

I was going to answer in this thread, but you may still be my opponent in the final match of the tournament and it would be foolish of me to give such information away  :-)

NICE  :-)  :-)  :-)

+1 karma for ya

@dezrtfish:

…this isn’t near as funny now.

I don’t know about that.  :-D

@ncscswitch:

If Germany is building INF THAT heavilly, then you have lost the offensive against Russia and are trading much closer to the vest as Germany.  That means Russia poses a greater threat, and that Germany has to fight harder just to stay in the 30’s for income.

You cannot BOTH build all INF AND trade at the Archangel/WR/Caucuses frontier turn after turn as Germany.  Sorry, it just does NOT happen  unless MASSIVE dice fracks come into play early in the game (or unless the Allies are playing poorly).

What games are you playing?

I hardly see G trade Arch, except rnd 1, never WRU, and when G starts trading cauc thats bad for allies.

@Thorak:

Assume I have loaded 2 UK inf on a US transport and then in the US turn I moved the transport to the seazone next to Ukraine. Can the inf on the transport participate on an attack on Ukraine in the following UK turn together with other UK units? Does it make any difference if Ukraine is empty and the units can take it alone?

The infantry can participate in an attack on Ukraine.

You do not have to unload both infantry during combat, although you may if you wish.

It makes no difference as to whether or not you unload infantry if Ukraine is empty or not.

Thanks all for the clarity.

(Switch is right, you need a destroyer present in other A&A games).

Before, transporting a tank was a joke, something you didn’t do unless you had extra transports.  It was a 3-2 unit, so a 2-2, 2-2 artillery infantry combination was better.  Now, tanks are on par; amphibious invasions are much more like land attacks.  So the end result of the increased defense and transport ease is that the artillery is what it should be: a supplement unit both amphibiously and not.  I applaud avalon hill’s new rules on land units because it is both realistic and feasible.  I don’t really see that one of the poll options adaquately shows my view.  I would say “it’s all about the money”, but when in this game is it not always about the money?

come on, now,…

less than 200 IPC’s for the most expensive battle?? that’s not much!  :roll:
I’m sorry to inform you, but I CAN’T believe this is true!!!
I had the vote counters set to zero again, 'cause I really think people who vote should make at least a calculation rather than an estimation
you can be fooled pretty quickly the way battles get really expensive…
and please give the people some feedback on how that battle got so expensive…
THX :-)

200 IPC’s?
that’s 20 armors (totalling 100 IPC’s) against 20 infantry and 4 figs (totalling 100 as well) for example…

204 IPC’s?
that’s 2 bombers, 6 figs, 10 inf and 6 art (totalling 144 IPC’s) against 20 infantry (totalling 60 IPC’s).

204 IPC’s?
that’s 9 subs and a BB (totalling 96 IPC’s) against 3 loaded AC’s (totalling 108 IPC’s)

I can’t believe at all that my opponent and I had the most expensive battle ever…  :-o
how do you guys manage to capture Russia if there is not something near 200 IPC’s at stake (see example 2)??