My grandfather would be glad to hear you say that - he’s part of the reason I’m a big pilot buff. He flew B-24s in the Pacific. The only problem is that every time we ask him to tell us stories about the war, he says “I’m a lover, not a fighter!” and tries to pinch Grandma (or my wife) on the butt… lol! We have a lot of great photos of him though.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:58 ]
I don’t want to spoil any of the stories, but just to give you a sneak preview - one of them was written by a british pilot, and the last part of the story was about him limping home over the channel on his own after a bad dog fight, I think in a Hurricane. A ME-109 saw him, came up behind him, took his time lining up on him (he couldn’t manuver) and then let loose. It didn’t bring him down. The german pilot pulled up beside him, surveyed the damage to the Hurricane, then fell back behind him and did it again. It still didn’t bring the Hurricane down. I think the german pilot repeated the whole process 3 or 4 times, but the Hurricane wouldn’t go down. The german finally pulled up beside him, saluted him, and then took off. The guy made it back to base! They counted the bullet-holes in his plane and it was in the hundreds!
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:49 ]
I’m sure you can find War in the Air at the library. I’m right there with you on pre-vietnam - I think there’s only one or two Vietnam stories and they are about Huey pilots - those guys had balls as big as any fighter pilot!
Not intelligent of me - just my main interest!
Here is the first thing I always bring up: Ever read this book?
War in the Air : True Accounts of the 2Oth Century’s Most Dramatic Air Battles by the Men Who Fought Them - Stephen Coonts (edited it)
These are the most incredible stories you have ever read, about 20 short stories from WWI all the way through Vietnam!
If you haven’t, trust me - quit reading this post and go order it from Amazon right now!!!
My favorite pilot is probably Boelcke, just for the fact that he was the pioneer of it all - the original fighter pilot.
His gravesite even had a wreath with the inscription: “To the memory of Captain Boelcke. Our brave and chivalrous opponent. From The British Royal Flying Corps”.
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:33 ]
Remember we are talking about UK1 here - Germany will have EE and Ukraine, and there is almost always only 1 Russian infantry in Caucasus.
I’ve only seen them land it in Syria/Iraq when they pull both infantry and the fighter from India there as well, which is not a bad move if the G1 rolls went UK’s way.
On UK2 they can avoid the AA no problem, which is why I said there’s a 24% chance of hitting the bomber (from just the transport) instead of a 35% chance (transport + AA).
What do you think about the risk/reward for the 2 infantry in Africa vs. 8 IPC loss though?
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:08 ]
Well then, I wish my little sister was that cool! :wink: My little sis likes Simcity and Tropico, so she can’t be that bad… lol!
Risk 2 is another Hasboro CD-Rom game - it’s mostly plain ol’ Risk but it’s done really well, too. It has rules for simltaneous (sp?) turns that makes it even more strategic - that version is great!!
TG (or TM): I hadn’t noticed you two were two different names until today… I’m guessing TM is your wife/girlfriend? If so you are lucky - I would love it if my wife played A&A! She likes Risk2 on the computer… that’s the best I could do so far… she doesn’t even like me playing A&A because it takes too long…
Also what’s the story with the names? Are there 5 more of you we don’t know about??? :smile:
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 14:23 ]
You are correct – it’s with Russia Restricted.
However, what I would also contemplate is whether or not you should purchase the extra transport. Since your main Mediterranean fleet should be operating in Egyptian waters, this leaves your transport particular vulnerable to air attacks. On B1, I can then press the point by sending my British bomber to attack your sub and landing at the Caucasus at the end of my combat phase.
I contemplate it myself every game and will buy all infantry otherwise, or rarely a fighter and all infantry. With Active Anti-Air (AAA) it’s solid because the bomber has to fly through an AA attack first which means about a 35% chance of losing the bomber total. Without AAA I’m on the fence.
Either way, the problem without buying it is that if you don’t, you will almost always lose the BS and T in Egypt on UK1 (sometimes they have to finish you off on R2), especially if the sub escaped or you took a hit on the BS. Buying the transport means they have to pick one SZ or the other (or else make highly risky attacks).
The best counter for the Allies is to still hit the BS and T in Egypt on UK 1 and then hit the other transport on UK or US 2 (because I’m buying 12 infantry on G2).
That’s why I’m not completely happy with the transport buy without AAA in effect - I can’t decide if transporting 2 infantry to Africa on G2 is worth it. If they don’t have to hit a transport they will usually SBR with the bomber instead. So in effect, buying the transport means that I lose 8 IPCs and a 16.7% shot at their bomber (vs. AA), and I gain 2 infantry in Africa, 1-6 IPCs (no SBR now) and a 24% shot at their bomber (vs. Transport).
That’s probably worth it and it’s certainly not a game-breaker, but I’m not completely sold…
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 14:25 ]
1. Japan still has large chance of winning the game even after Germany has fallen. However, this all has to do with proper timing. Usually the ideal situation that Japan should position itself in is this:
a. Let Germany fall to the Russians (now in really life Patton and his 3rd should’ve taken Berlin… but that is a different story).
b. If you really want to damage the Allies in the long run, also let the Russians take Eastern Europe, Norway, and Ukraine on the previous turns, and on the same turn Berlin falls, let the Russians take Southern Europe.
c. On Japan’s turn, use your massive ARM, ftr, and inf force to storm Moscow! (again, not in real life… but it’s just a game)
d. Now by Japan taking Moscow, what have I done? Not only is Russia knocked out of the game, but most of Eastern Europe along with it. The former territories I told you about: Ukraine, EE, SE, Norway, and Germany have all effectively become worthless territories (not to mention Karelia and Caucasus until Japan can take them). Effectively I have robbed USA and UK of (3+3+2+6+10) 24 potential German IPCs!
e. Now this is the real killing joke. When I take a Capital that means I collect all the IPCs that the former owner of the captured capital has. Not only am stripping the Russian economy but the Germans IPCs too, which were previously under Russian control.
f. Spend all my money on tanks and infantry from which I can overrun the Allies.
If by ‘large chance’ you mean Japan has say, a 20% chance of winning I might buy it, but otherwise we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What you have described sounds more like the optimal situation for Japan that presents the only way they would have a chance of winning – I certainly wouldn’t consider it the norm. I know what you mean about the former Russian territories being worthless, but it usually only applies to Karelia, Caucasus, and Ukraine. Maybe I’m the only one, but I seem to always wind up taking EE and Germany with the UK or more often the US – it’s rarely with Russia. If the game is that close, most of my Russian troops are in Russia. Usually the Japan player just throws in the towel, so I don’t think that too many are played out to begin with.
2. I don’t think the majority of Axis and Allies players use 2-hit battleships, as they are not currently sanctioned under Official Axis and Allies Tournaments – or last time I checked.
You may be right, but in my A&A world (which is mostly online play, Spring1942, the zone, and my circle of friends) they do. I know that the IAAPA still uses 2nd Edition rules…
3. Sorry, don’t know what you mean when you say I have effectively eliminated the Japanese fleet as an early useful force in the game. Usually on the opening turns with Japan, I only consider one thing, getting as many troops as I can into Asia. On a closer examination there is not many Asian coastal territories within the striking distance of the Japanese fleet even if it still was at Hawaii. I can only rule the Soviet Far East and India as the only real available Asian coastal territories and both can be taken within the first three turns, the Far East especially. It is not until at least turn 3 do I make any actual attempts as island conquering (ie Australia, Hawaii). On the contrary, if I do not take out the American battleship, it gives the Allies the huge benefit on not building any Naval units to protect transports against Luftwaffe attacks.
Don’s quote, not mine. I think he’s talking about the fighters being out of position, i.e. they would be better used pushing the assault in the mainland. Not to mention the fact that you will probably lose both planes – even with 1-hit battleships it’s an attack with bad odds. If the US brings a transport from the East Coast then Japan has about a 60% chance of losing both fighters. I’ve seen people do it anyway to force the US to build another capital ship and you can always get lucky, but I personally think the 2 Fighters are more valuable to Japan then the Battleship is to the US. It’s just a bad move anyway you look at it. He could also be talking about swinging the fleet around South America.
4. I have read some of Don’s essays, and I can tell you that they are extremely influential. In fact, all of my A&A: Allies strategies take something from them. However, I can say Don’s essays are perfect. There are people at these forums, including myself, that have beaten other players that stick to Don’s essays to the letter. Besides, there is nothing very appealing to the standard buy all infantry each turn.
I’m sure you meant not perfect, and I agree with you 100% - they are somewhat antiquated, a little overzealous – especially about “use these opening moves or you will lose”, and the infantry buildup game is certainly the most boring strategy in A&A – but it does still give the Allies the best chance of winning, and the basic concepts are extremely valuable to beginning and intermediate players.
“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truly counts” –
I like the quote! I’m a big fan of WWII and WWI air combat. I am lucky enough to have one of the largest private libraries on WWI aviation about 5 minutes from my house, at the University of Texas at Dallas.
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 12:20 ]
Just what we need - a rule that makes A&A move a little slower! :wink:
I like the idea, all though it does change the entire game… I’ll try to talk one of my friends into it.
Wild, that is too good of an answer… I had to go back and edit the original post! :smile:
I was looking more for operations in the Pacific, even though I know it’s a bad idea… more for fun than for winning.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 14:48 ]
I’m sure many of you have tried fighting a two front war with the Allies, either testing it out or out of boredom with Crush Germany… what’s the best you’ve come up with so far, aside from the traditional ICs in India/Sinkaing?
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 14:47 ]
Got it now, nevermind - I had put in my own dashes in the sig box…
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 12:45 ]
My sig is not working - what am I doing wrong? I put in the sig box under Edit profile…
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 12:44 ]
G1 w/2-hit Battleships
Purchase 8 inf, 1 transport.
North Sea: 4 Fighters, transport and sub
Typical Result: lose 1 fighter
Gibraltar: 1 sub, 1 fighter, 1 bomber
Typical Result: lose the sub
Egypt SZ: 1 Battleship, loaded transport
Typical Result: no losses
land 1-2 fighters and bomber in WE, 3 fighters in EE
This is a bit conservative, trying to hang on to the German fighters since they are so important. You can go after the Canadian transport, but have a good chance of losing 2 fighters if you do. The transport buy is stronger in a 2-hit game because of the German battleship, especially with Active AA.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 14:24 ]
I would love to discuss this subject matter for to the light of day. You remarked that I wouldn’t see the greatness of All Power to Germany, until I witnessed it myself. The problem is that I have, many, many times. All Power to Germany is not a new strategy or a very innovative one at that – nor does it mean instant victory. There is something to be said about coming up with you own unique playing style in a field dominated by norms. Now some people are content with consistency, so I really wouldn’t know.
Now you say that Germany can do nothing about an Allied invasion. I feel that this is untrue, as Germany can still accomplish a whole lot. On the first turn, Germany can hamper an Allied assault by UK through the total destruction of the navy. On the following turns, I can consolidate my gains in Africa as well as Eastern Europe. The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn.
I agree with this for the most part. I also don’t doubt your experience. Many of your previous questions seem to indicate that you haven’t been playing against advanced Allied players, which is why I am under the impression that you haven’t seen the Crush Germany strategy played to it’s full potential - but I most certainly could be wrong, all I have to go on is what you have posted. Also, that is not at all an ‘attack’ on you or your opponents - I know that tone doesn’t come across on the Internet, so understand that I am only trying to help and I don’t mean anything negative in any way!
Also, I am curious as to what rules you play with and who you typically play against? I noticed you don’t use 2-hit battleships, so maybe you are playing 2nd edition. What about Russia Restricted, submerging, stuff like that? Those factors can make a world of difference.
Now you said that there are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia. I really don’t understand what you mean by “few things,” either by sending planes to Germany or what? I always came to understand that the greatest way to help out Germany is by hurting Russia. So by increasing pressure on Russia, I am in fact relieving pressure from Germany by forcing Russia to defend her home boundaries.
You are exactly right. As I said in the original post, Japan has one job to do: take Russia before Germany falls. The ‘few things’ I alluded to are some minor and/or advanced Japanese strategies, such as landing in Alaska, sending the fleet around South America to threaten Brazil/South Africa, sending the Japanese Fleet west in the mid-game, etc. The specifics are worthy of entirely new posts, so I wasn’t going to get into the details of them. The important thing about all of these strategies is that they must take away as little momentum as possible from Japan’s assault on Russia.
Now the way GGF (Get Germany First) sounds, I will constantly be forced to send troops to Europe no matter what. So would I continue sending forces against Germany even though Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia?
That is correct, you send all of your troops to Europe (or occasionally Africa) no matter what – because Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia. The Allies can defend Russia from the west much easier than from the east. All the Allied troops in Karelia allow Russia to divert forces from Karelia to defend Russia, and if things are looking grim the Allies can move troops into Russia as well.
“(However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)”
In this quote you attacked my idea that Germany will hold Eastern European. However, if you had examined my quote a little harder, you would notice,”…I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game. “ See how I said keep the Allies “at” Eastern Europe. So I am assuming that the Allies will indeed retake Germany.
My mistake, although I’m not trying to ‘attack’ any of your ideas!
Now the defeat of Germany is inevitable. But the number of turns this would require is the winning difference for the Axis. I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia. Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.
Yes, the number of turns Germany can survive is the winning difference for the Axis, but Japan has to take Russia BEFORE Germany falls. To be more accurate, Japan actually has to take Russia about two or three turns before Germany would have fallen, then prevent Germany from falling by putting pressure on the Allies from Russia. Japan cannot win a 3 on 1 game, no matter how out of control they are.
The battleship movement is also slightly flawed. First, this movement expects that the Japanese fleet will not go after the American fleet the following turn. Second, this movement assumes that Japan cannot launch fighters from its aircraft carrier to intercept the battleship. Now normally at Hawaii I will lose 1-2 units. On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.
I think the other guy covered this for 1-hit battleships, and it’s even worse for the Japanese fighters with the 2-hit battleships that most people play with now. I’ll also steal a quote from those advanced strategy essays I told you about:
Ignore any Japanese fleet in the Pacific. Move ALL surviving U.S. fleet through the Panama canal to assist and support the “shuck-shuck” transports in the Atlantic. If the Japanese player wants to take out your Battleship and Transport near Panama, fine…too bad for the Japanese; their fleet is now at least TWO TURNS out of position, effectively eliminating them as an early useful force in the game. This is a sucker move, and it will cause Axis death that much earlier.
To all: I can’t stress the value you will get from reading those essays enough! Players really need to fully understand the concepts of infantry pushes, the ‘shuck-shuck’ strategy, and especially dead zones before they will be able to develop strategies feasible against advanced players under the standard rules.
Here’s the website again for those of you who missed it:
http://donsessays.freeservers.com/
To TM Moses VII, maybe you have already read them and just don’t agree with them – nothing wrong with that. Maybe you know all of those concepts by different names through experience. Maybe you are only playing with your own circle of friends and don’t have to create strategies that will beat advanced players – just ones’ that will beat your friends. Maybe you put more value on developing unique strategies than perfecting existing ones – nothing wrong with that either.
This thread took a right-hand turn because we noticed you were making some strategy assumptions based on poor Allied play, and you seem to be unfamiliar with the specifics of some advanced allied tactics. That is not a personal attack on you by any means – I’m certainly not familiar with every advanced tactic myself, and I don’t know if you’ve played 5 games or 5000. Our discussion is really only on advanced Allied strategy – you are preaching to the choir about developing new strategy - everyone’s all for it. The original intention of this thread was to help improve the play of beginning and intermediate players, not to debate the value of new strategies. I’m genuinely interested in your ideas for a ‘balanced attack’ strategy – let’s all toss around ideas and see how much we can do with it!
However, all that having been said, the only strategies of value to many of us are the ones that are based on the advanced play concepts that have been proven effective over the years. Hundreds of players have already walked the path in front of you. There is nothing wrong with developing a unique playing style, but to misquote Bismark – your skill will evolve much faster if you learn from other people’s mistakes instead of your own.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 14:02 ]
… is not my favorite - it’s too big and yet at the same time harder to read… is there a way I can change it as an individual setting?
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-15 12:42 ]
1.) As a child because I was brought up that way, as an adult by choice.
2.) Catholic/non-denominational
3.) All faiths have their place in society.
Organized religion/churches can’t help but be both positively and negatively influenced by the people that try to run them, and thus are not 100% representative of the ‘true’ faith they claim to represent.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-15 12:23 ]
I can go back and forth explaining specific situations all day, and honestly, I don’t mind if I’m helping others improve their play. That’s one of the reasons I post on this board. However, don’t get distracted by small, individual tactics - keep your main focus on the overall strategy: the Allies can overwhelm Germany with pure numbers and there is NOTHING Germany can do about it! If you’re like me you will probably have to see it for yourself in action before you truly accept it. Then, if you’re really like me, after the first beating you will say “OK - now I know how to stop it” and try something else, and so on… and it will be several games later before you truly accept it. :smile:
There are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia, thereby increasing pressure against Germany: Catch-22. The common solution is to use house rules that bolster the Axis.
OK, here goes…
Now, the German first strategy is nothing new. And I feel the best countermeasure Germany can put up against it is to go purely defensive instead of brash series of gambits. By resisting stubbornly, I can buy time not for myself, but time for Japan to reach critical mass. What this means is that Japan is in position where it dominates the Pacific, all of Asia excluding the Russian capital, and a strong foothold in Africa. I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game.
That’s correct and you’re off to a good start - Germany has to play defensive until Japan takes Russia. (However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)
Now the strategy I intend to use puts pressure on both Germany and Japan. For Germany, I can consider myself successful if I can isolate them to Eastern Europe and westward. All avenues including North Africa, Norway, and Ukraine should be cut off. What this does is keeps Germany in a position where it is still formidable, but not strong enough to conduct any sort of offensive in the Russo-Prussia Front.
This policy leaves me with extra IPCs from a full-blown offensive that I think will be better used in the Pacific. What this does is contain Germany in Europe and prevent the Japanese from reaching critical mass. When this happens, a stalemate is achieved where the Allies can then use its superior economy and strategic bombing to ride it out.
Developing new strategies is great – maybe yours will be the breakthrough strategy that proves all of us wrong, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. I’m sure many of us would be interested in helping you flesh it out. Maybe you should start a thread with your ideas? If you do, be sure to put in your first post that you just want help developing the current strategy to it’s full potential – otherwise you will just get a bunch of people telling you not going Crush Germany is a huge mistake.
You mentioned landing troops in Russia simply as a move to reinforce them. I would agree with you. If I see Russia in dire straits, then I will funnel troops that would be normally sent to Africa to relieve this burden. However, you 20/20 tactic calls for a little too much “excessive force” in my opinion…
It’s the other way around - If you see Africa in dire straits, funnel troops that would normally be sent to Russia.
Allied troops in Russia do three things: they reinforce Karelia against Germany, they free up Russian infantry to be used vs. Japan, and they can take Eastern Europe. The game is won or lost in the battle for Eastern Europe, which means you can’t have excessive forces in Karelia – as soon as you do, you can take Eastern Europe (see below).
Your Western Europe response is a little vague… if I want an impenetrable fortress I can commit 15 infantry and two planes preexisting at the start of the game… Britain will lose 100% of the time…
Once again, let me assure you that there are no bad attacks in this strategy, and I mention this again to save you the effort you are spending in calculating battle odds for bad Allied attacks. Ignore the specific numbers and look at the concept instead.
15 infantry and 2 planes are a solid defense, and with those numbers Western Europe won’t be attacked. Trying to get those numbers while still protecting Germany and Eastern Europe at the same time is the difficult part. You also have to have 15 infantry and 2 planes in Germany to protect against the same assualt. Now look at Eastern Europe, and let’s say I have 30/15/15 R/UK/US infantry in Karelia. The UK can hit EE with 23 infantry (15+8 from the transport) and say, 1 tank, 1 bomber and 2 fighters. Then the US can hit EE with 25 infantry (15+10), 1 or 2 bombers, maybe a tank, and two fighters. Then the Russians can hit EE with 30 infantry, 3 tanks, and 2 planes. So now you get out the odds calculator and find out how many infantry and fighters you have to have to survive all three attacks, and then add that to the 30 infantry and 4 fighters in WE and G. You get the idea. But, like I said earlier - ignore the actual numbers themselves - you would be missing the point. They are just an example meant to convey the strategic concept, exact numbers would be impossible to determine until you get to that phase of the game anyway. The point is that Germany has to defend all three countries at once against odds that get worse every turn. Even if we leave Russia completely out of the picture (let’s say they are wrapped up in fighting Japan by this point), there are 18 new Allied infantry moving into Karelia each turn! As you can see it’s only a matter of time before the German player is forced to give up Eastern Europe and retreat to Germany. That only delays the inevitable, however – you will still have 18+ allied troops moving into Eastern Europe each turn.
How exactly am I able to rush my battleship in Western USA to the Atlantic? You mentioned going through the Panama Canal. Unless I am wrong (and please correct me if I am), the Panama Canal is considered two separate sea zones – the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea. That would mean the furthest I could penetrate with my American battleship is from the E. Central Pacific to the Gulf of Panama. This offers me no strategic or movement advantage whatsoever compared to the Japanese fleet stationed at Hawaii and within striking distance. Without any supporting aircraft, the American fleet at Western USA is doomed.
US1 – Move the battleship to the Gulf of Panama.
US2 – Move the battleship to the USA Atlantic, protecting any transports purchased from a german bomber in WE.
US3 – Move the battleship to the North Sea, protecting the Allied fleet.
The US shouldn’t hit the Japanese fleet in Hawaii unless it is severely damaged from the previous battle, and even then it’s not a great idea. The only thing that is doomed is the American transport.
#6, “How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens.”
By doing so, you are actually helping the Axis win. This in turn slows down your transport armada by one turn allowing Germany some breathing space since it now takes two turns for your infantry to reach Eastern Canada. As for Japan, the lost turn is hardly felt since I will usually threaten Western USA from Alaska. If USA takes the bait and places, I will load my troops from Alaska back onto the transports and proceed to unload at Manchuria. Then on the following turn, my transports are free to carry more infantry.
That is the one turn gap I told you about. There is no ‘bait’ for the US to take – they HAVE to build in Western USA. It is a vital Japanese strategy. However, “helping the Axis to win” is an exaggeration - “giving Germany one more turn to live” is more accurate. One extra turn is not enough for the Axis; you have to distract the US elsewhere as well later in the game.
As for ATB/VATB - you would probably be interested in the Eight Maxims of Strategy by Hart, which apply to A&A very nicely. I will try to post them in a thread soon.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-15 14:02 ]
I thought that was part of CiC, but I could be wrong. If that’s the case then it is a house rule of ours - one country’s fighters can’t land on another’s aircraft carrier. Helps the Axis a little, and they need every thing they can get!