Posts made by Field Marshal

What I found out is:

If attacking, the fighters are cargo and don’t attack along with the carrier and other British ships.

If defending, the fighters DO roll defensively, since the attacker fights ALL units in the embattled area…

Sounds good. My last post on the carrier movement with Allied planes on board was something I hadn’t run into yet…

All 3 edition rules follow that format. It doesn’t matter if your playing the board game or the CDROM…

Your attack on Karelia ends the combat phase of your turn. The next phase is non-combat movement, which does not allow any attacks. You will have to wait until your next turn to attack Russia, unless of course the Allies take back Karelia before then…

Here’s the scenario:

On the USA’s turn, they landed 1 fighter on a British aircraft carrier.

The question is - Is it LEGAL for the British to MOVE their carrier (with the US fighter on it) on Britian’s turn and have the US fighter remain landed on it?

If so, does this change the US fighter’s movement capability on the US’ next turn?

Japan can hold off the US for many turns. It won’t be until turn 3 when the US can attack the Japanese fleet with sufficient forces. Germany has at least 4 more turns on top of that US free. Germany can hold Africa longer and drive sooner into Russia. If Japan purchased an early IC and captured 1 more, the lose of their fleet is less significant to a US player determined to take Asia or Japan proper. Germany, in this scenario, is totally unmolested by the US. This can be very bad for Russia with no US help coming. The British don’t have the buying power to help in Europe significantly alone.
I’ll agree your plans may succeed. But it’s a hard road for the Allies. The Axis has the time to better prepare for this threat. If the Allies lose momentum, Russia will fall. I’ve tried this many times (I still am). Unfortunately, the Axis can get the upperhand more often…

Major_Damage,
Your quote, “If Japan doesn’t attack, then the US will draw Japan’s attention from the mainland…which is no good”.
Why would this happen?

The Allies are giving Germany a break. Germany will take Karelia (with only 5 or 6 Russian defenders). Russia will take it back in turn 2, but Russia won’t be able to use Karelia’s IC that turn. This gives Germany build up time (1 or 2 turns) on the eastern front. If the US is pressuring Japan and NOT setting up to invade Europe, this gives Germany more forces in Africa and Eastern Europe.
Japan needs to take China and build up Manchuria. It would be in-advisable to attack Hawaii in turn 1 with these circumstances. The Allies are building up in Asia. Japan needs to address it immediately.
It may look bad for Japan, but it looks good for Germany. In turn 2, if Germany takes advantage of this situation, at the very least Russia and the UK will have to divert attention to Germany ASAP. Japan will have to do what they can and hold out…

If Japan is intent on destroying the US Pacific fleet, there’s little the US can do to stop it. Even if the US counter-attacks in turn 1, they will still lose most or all of they’re naval and air forces. As for the Allies having the ability to “afford” to rebuild their fleets, they actually have little choice in the matter. The US MUST build a sizable transport fleet to be effective in the Allied war effort. The UK has the the same problem, but to a much lesser extent.
If your playing against someone with equal or greater game experience, the game comes down to strategy and time tables. If your strategies are for the most part similar, your playing the time table game. Do you want to start off one turn behind with the US? Alot will depend on what happened before the US gets it’s first turn. If it looks fairly even, any player can’t really afford too great of risks and win. Standard US strategy calls for a “Germany First” scenario. If you get “super subs”, what good is that against Germany who loses their fleet by turn 3 anyway???

Suggesting your odds (1 in 6) in getting heavy bombers pans out, what do you do in those 5 games it doesn’t. The US has basically no purchases in turn 1. Since this scenario is the norm, what then?

It might be bad for Japan to ignore China in turn 1. If the US/UK both place IC’s in turn 1 in Sinkiang/India, Japan can’t touch them, possibly at all. By the end of turn 3, Japan will only have 2 or 3 infantry in Novosibirsk or Evenki, and the Allies could take FIB and Kwantung. The Allies could also have armor rolling north waiting for Japanese infantry columns. Japanese NP will stagnate, the Russians can deal with them easier (with US/UK IC help), Japan can’t regain south-east Asia without reducing the drive into Russia, etc.
In turn 1, if Russia takes Manchuria with fighter support and the UK builds an IC in India, Japan better keep their eyes open…

Initially the British can be in alot of trouble early on in Africa. I like having the British bail themselves out by a South African IC and transported troops from England. This rebuilds their NP quick and puts forces into Asia. This also frees up the US to put all energy into transporting to Europe. I know most of you may disagree with this strategy, but it seems to work fairly well if I don’t let up any pressure on the Axis…

After the Japanese early IC vs. transports only debate, it seems the 2nd Japanese controversy is whether or not Japan should attack Hawaii in turn 1. Let’s break it down pro and con:

JAPAN - PRO
1. Sends a powerful fleet in range of the US west coast.
2. Destroys the US carrier needed in Europe and threatens the remaining US Pacific fleet.
3. May force the US to take energy away from attacking Germany (temporarily).
4. May scare the US with a hidden strategy (could be used as a bluff or to try an advanced strategy).

JAPAN - CON
1. Takes badly needed aircraft away from the Asian battles.
2. Leaves your transports unprotected in Japan (if their not with the fleet).
3. US counter-attacks may destroy or reduce your fleet to 1 or 2 battleships. Japan can’t afford to replace their fleet which could be better used intact elsewhere.
4. The US may control the Pacific and seriously harm your efforts without your fleet protection.

US - With Counter-Attack
1. The US will lose all or most of it’s remaining fleet and aircraft which are badly needed in Europe.
2. Forces the UK to provide the US with more fleet protection in the Atlantic.
3. May give more strength to a “Japan First” option.

US - Without Counter-Attack
1. The US may lose the remaining 2 ships anyway depending on Japan’s intentions.
2. The US could lose time regaining lost territory from Japanese West Coast attacks.

Overall, Japan is taking a gamble on what the US may do. It could cost the Allies an un-needed delay or totally backfire on Japan.

OPINIONS…

Sorry, should have clarified. I attack the sub with aircraft only. It’s so frustrating to miss, although that doesn’t happen too often.
As for the Egypt attack, I used to do it all the time to knock down UK forces. As you know this battle can go bad for the Germans at least half the time. Even if you win, your forces are weaker and spread thinner. This gives the UK a better chance of a successful counter-attack in turn 1.
I’ve found the initial German forces in Libya can move to down to Central Africa and then transport 2 infantry to Libya from SE. This gives the Germans a larger force in Africa to take Egypt (and the fleet the chance to take Syria) in turn 2 and gives the UK player in turn 1 some hard choices. A good UK move is to move Egyptian forces (at least one) to Syria. This secures the territory and allows landing their aircraft after attacking the German fleet in turn 2. Without Syria, the German fleet lasts at least 2 more turns. Bad for the British. I try to scare the UK player to make a stand in Egypt in turn 2 and leave Syria weak or undefended. Germany keeping the Med with their fleet helps this scare (although Germany knows this is vital for a stronger attack in Africa/Syria in turn 2).
Anyway this usually gives Germany a fair stand at least in Egypt for a few turns. It could also take and hold the continent for a short time. Either way it delays the Allies and lowers UK NP possibly long enough to win…

Depends. What did Russia do in turn 1?

Unfortunately for Europeans, it is easier to find the games in the US. I got extremely lucky last year and found the CDROM in a toy store! I haven’t seen the board game for sale for a few years. Haven’t seen A&AE or A&AP at all. I’ll admit I haven’t been looking real hard though…

Yes, I have Germany destroy it to give the German Med fleet a turn or 2 longer life to transport to Africa. I know it may seem like a waste of an aircraft or 2 in turn 1, but if it survives the UK bomber and this sub can attack the German Southern Europe Fleet in turn 1. The UK player may lose both units, but further German transporting to Africa will at least be ended. I agree that it would be bad for Japan if that sub escaped to the Indian Ocean…

I agree with Bossk. Love keeping the US in the Pacific to attack Japan either directly or in Asia. It puts alot of German pressure on Russia and Britian’s got to help them quick. But overall, it’s a good try for the Allies. Ocassionally, it will work…

Either way Japan is played, Russia prepares. This puts maximum pressure on both fronts. At the end of turn 4/5, Allied Asia is nearly all in Japanese hands. How can you do better? An infantry push into Russian Asia leaves US/UK IC’s intact to harrass your infantry columns. Plus you don’t have the NP from the US/UK Asian territories to expand past purchasing 8 infantry a turn. You don’t have an IC in place operating to fend off British forces from Africa. An infantry push further south will be horribly harrassed by all Allies, encircled, and stopped. Limited NP and transports alone won’t allow an effective north and south fronts to work at the same time. It will be too weak splitting half the infantry in 2 areas.
Anyway you play it’s 4 minimum turns to Moscow. I’d rather have the Allies out of the picture in Asia when I get there. I like the NP and the ability to deal with Africa if and when needed. You can also spare your fleet with a transport to go take those nice weakly defended Allied Pacific posessions when possible.
Maybe Major-Damage is right. We can agree to disagree. But I think IT IS fun to post about it. What is this forum for? What else can we do here? We can learn from each other, what’s the harm in that? We give our strategies away on the battlefield anyway, why all the secrecy here? I’ll apologize to all if our debates are endless and tedious. But I’ll still do them. Yanny - it’s been great posting with you. To all - what good is no communication???

Actually, I do have more units. In turn 1, I attack China with 4 infantry (2 from FIB and 2 from Kwangtung). I move in all 4 available aircraft (3 fighters and the bomber). This leaves with usually 2 infantry left. I have Japan transport the 4 infantry to protect the new IC in FIB. I land 2 fighters there. 2 or 3 fighters go to Manchuria (depending on Russian moves). In turn 2 I have 6 infantry (2 in China,4 in FIB), and 3 or 4 aircraft to attack the US in Sinkiang’s 2 infantry. At the same time, Japan attacks the Soviet Far East with available Manchurian forces and the bomber. Most players leave the Soviet Far East more weakly defended than Yakut for strategic reasons. It’s an easy capture and it sets you up for the real attack in Yakut with remaining forces in the Soviet Far East and newly transported infantry in Manchuria from returning transports. Back down south at the end of turn 2, Sinkiang will have 4 or 5 Japanese infantry. FIB has 3 armor and 3 fighters. Britian’s turn 3 faces this with 2 infantry, 3 armor, and a fighter in India. What will the UK do? Attack Sinkiang is easier, but then face powerful forces from FIB. Attacking FIB is extremely risky, if it works. Good chance it won’t. You can also not attack and try to hold off a powerful Japanese counter-attack with 9 UK units. Not very good choices all around. Usually India is taken by Japan in turn 3 or 4. Is the British IC in India worth this defeat?