It´s here! The Enlarged Gameboard for use with Revised Edition 2004

http://boardgamegeek.com/ look there

Myself it really depends on what Germany does, though my standard moves are, Dest from SZ35 to SZ59, Sub from SZ40 to SZ45, The Subs a 50/50, some people like to take the carrier to the tran as well but, I prefer the Dest Alone. If Africa is going good, Namely if I can retake EGY, then the tran in SZ40 takes two inf from AUS and invades New Guinea (Something nice to try) If I cannot retake EGY I like to use the Tran to pick up 2 INF from AUS and then move to SZ30, then on UK2 drop them anywhere along the Africa coast (Even Persia if it needs them). If Germany takes EGY and you “can” retake it, then do it bringing 2 inf from IND, 1 INF from TRJ and the Fighter from SZ35 (You can also bring your Bomber but I usually don’t). Otherwise I like to stack 2 inf in TRJ and the 3 Indian Inf and A-A gun to Persia. The AC stays with the Tran wherever it decides to go. If Germany is stupid and doesn’t take EGY, then smile :lol: happily and move the INF from TRJ into it, stack 4 + A-A gun in Persia, move the FIG to EGY and move the Tran and AC to SZ33 (Out of reach of the IJN).
The SAF INF always moves up, regardless of what you do.

@Krieghund:

It’s true that SBRs are nearly a break-even proposition.  However, if they weren’t, they’d dominate the game.

The whole point of SBRs is inflicting damage that the enemy can’t afford.  The US is the only country that can really afford an SBR campaign, simply because it can afford the losses, while Germany can’t.  The US sacrifices its own income to suppress Germany’s so that the UK and USSR can take advantage of its weakened state.  This is not really pointless.

If SBRs were a money-making proposition, there’s no way that the Axis could survive, since they start off economically inferior to the Allies.  The Allies could simply build a few bombers to SBR with, then devote the rest of their income to defense.  Eventually, the combined toll of the bombings would render the Axis powers bankrupt, then the Allies could move in for the kill.  Doesn’t sound like a very fun game, does it?

The strategy you’re describing sounds perfectly viable to me.

@scheidelin:

I corrected my first note.

Ghostglider was playing Allies ofcause

Got ya. I already was heavily confused by the setup on the board for an Axis victory :P
But this is great. Indeed, be sure to announce it next year, Holland aint that far away either :)

@ncscswitch:

To limit the Yamato Class Battlehips by reducign their defensive fire against air to a 4, then you also would need to increase them to THREE hits to sink.

Marianas Turkey Shoot.  It was 200 and what hits to sink that single BB?

The Mushashi was sunk during the Sibuyan Sea phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, on October 24, 1944.  It is estimated that the ship took 20 torpedo hits, 17 direct bomb hits, and 18 near-misses by bombs prior to sinking.  After Action analysis by the US Navy and the post-war report done by the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan analyzing the loss of major Japanese warships (I have my own copy and also a complete set of the reports on microfilm) indicated that one of the reasons for the survival of the ship following so many hits was the relatively even distribution of them on both the port and starboard sides, in effect counterflooding the ship and preventing it from capsizing.  Extremely heavy damage forward from both bombs and torpedoes resulted in the ship sinking by the head, and capsizing in the process of sinking.

The Yamato was sunk on April 7, 1945 during the attempt to sortie to the Okinawa invasion in an effort to attack the transport fleet. The ship was hit by an estimated 13 torpedoes, and at least 8 comfirmed bombs.  I suspect that there were more unreported bomb hits, and no count was made of near misses.  The US torpedo plane pilots had been briefed to concentrate their attacks on one side, and all but 2 torpedo hits were on the port side.  The two on the starboard side were assessed at prolonging the process of sinking.  The Yamato did capsize to port, and the after magazines exploded when she sank.

In neither case did the ships have fighter cover, so they were totally dependent on anti-aircraft fire from themselves and the rest of the task force.  In neither case did the losses of US Navy aircraft attacking the ships exceed 10%.  In comparable attacks on US battleships, Japanese attacking aircraft losses started at 50% and at times reached 90%.  That is my basis for reducing the Yamato-class defensive fire against aircraft.

I am also very familiar with the protective schemes of both the Yamato and the Iowa class.  The Yamato class did have a major flaw with its torpedo protection system that left it highly vulnerable to flooding from a shallow torpedo hit, to some extent compensated by the depth of the side protection system.  There is also a problem with the torpedo protection system on the Iowa, which required modifying the liquid-loading scheme to restore full effectiveness.  Overall, I would rate the Yamato and Iowa equal in damage resistance.

I guess that I am looking at it more from the standpoint of a naval tactical gamer where individual ship characteristics can be easily factored in, verses a strategic game, where that is hard to do so, unless you have a pronounced disparity.  Also, keeping track of Three hits verses Two is much more difficult.  I will have to come up with another way of factoring in poor Japanese AA fire.  Two hits, and 5 attack and 5 defend it is.

I think the most important battles are:

Germany: Egypt, clearing the Med of british shipping

everyone else depends on their strategy.

Revised is sometimes also called 4th Edition.

Or, if you are like me, just raid chips (and extra Japan INF and ARM, something else I have run out of in the last 2 games I played) from your Milton Bradley Classic AA game.  Exactly the same size and style :-)