Posts made by MacNaughton

Using the concept that infantry should be a part of offensive movement in order to soak hits and keep your more valuable tanks alive, what ratio to you prefer for infantry to tanks? 2 infantry for every 1 tank? Or higher?
Also, how many subs/destroyers do you like to keep with your carriers and battleships?

I know the answer will depend greatly on the force your attacking, how far you want that expiditionary force to travel, how many planes you can get to support the attack, and lots of other factors. I’m looking for some general rules.

@Gargantua:

or add them to the defence of the closest true Neutral land connected territory.

-If there are MORE escaped POW units in a true neutral territory than it’s home guard, the escaped POW’s can attempt to overthrow the government, and make it a PRO Neutral for their side, if they FAIL, it becomes a PRO Neutral for the other side.

Feel free to improve upon these, or add your own comments?!?!?!

This part doesn’t seem to go along with the way true neutrals are treated throughout the game. While I really like the idea of swaying true neutrals toward my side without having to conquer them, letting POWs enter true neutrals doesn’t fit the rest of the game. I’d love for there to be a retooling of true neutrals so that they could be swayed peacefully into joining the war on either side, but I don’t think runaway POWs is the answer.

Now, if allied POWs escape Japan’s control and Mongolia is the only non-hostile territory within 5 spaces, I understand the realism of the POWs running to Mongolia. Perhaps once there the allied power can pay the Mongolians (the bank) to transport the POWs to an allied territory– say 1 IPC per unit per 3 spaces of movement.
Since Mongolia will treat Axis or Allied powers this way, it keeps them a true neutral. They are merely returning people to their own powers and being repaid for the inconvenience.

With such a rule, it would be interesting to see a power attack a true neutral for the purpose of recovering POWs.

Any nation should be allowed to execute POWs at the time they are captured or in the future on their turn. This only makes sense as I’m sure I won’t always have spare infantry to guard prisoners. Also, if I see that my prison area is going to be conquered/liberated, I won’t want those POWs being reassembled into my enemy’s army. Lastly, I’m sure the threat of executing POWs would come in handy during a face-to-face game.

The advantage of SBRing POWs is that you are destroying your enemy’s slave camps even at the expense of killing your own countrymen? Am I right about your thinking here?

@Rhey:

Canada would take 7 IPC’s and weaken UK in Europe to build against sealion. We solved this by indeed keeping their economies apart, but letting the canadians decide weather they transfer their ipc’s from their original territories (the ones from occupied territorries goes directly to the canadian economy) to the UK or not. This way the UK can still keep their original 28 IPC’s. They still attack together as a united force.
This is our house rule. Let me know what you think!

Can London also give their IPCs to Canada? Or, another way to ask the same question,  can London IPCs be spent in Canada, or is Canada restricting to spending 7 IPCs + NO + conquered/liberated territories? One last way to ask it, can money earned by UK from African territories be spent in the Canada IC?

1 IPC per unit, or per territory with at least one Canadian unit in it?

A 4 IPC unit with an attack strength of 2 in a naval battle does seem way too good. Perhaps 3 artillery together can make one roll for bombardment. Now it is 12 IPCs that give you an extra attack at 2.

If there was an impending amphibious assault, would the artillery get to participate in the naval portion, and then in the land portion if the naval defense failed? What is the best course of action here.

You’ve got to defend Northern Italy, it has a mjor industrial complex you don’t want to lose.

The USA is not allowed to take control of DNG until it is in the war, right?
It would be great if the economic giant could be responsible for building the NB and AB on that island fortress.

So when it comes to landing planes, one should think of Dutch territories having the exact same relationship to UK and ANZAC as USA has to UK and ANZAC.

Great, thanks.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this handled before, but can’t remember the answer. There are two situations I’m looking to be clarified.

1. There is a Japanese aircraft carrier with 2 fighters and transports off the coast of Japanese controlled Hawaii. USA attacks with submarines and loaded transports to naval invade Hawaii. Once the Japanese aircraft carrier is destroyed, what happens? Do the planes immediately land on Hawaii and then take part in defending the naval invasion? Or do they continue to fly in the air and crash in the water if USA successfully liberates Hawaii? Or does the presence of the fighters keep the USA transports from landing at all since the Allied subs can’t destroy them?

2. There are USA subs and transports off the coast of Allied occupied Hawaii. Japan attacks with subs and loaded transports. If the USA subs submerge, are the USA transports automatically destroyed and can Japan invade Hawaii?

I have not had success trying to take USA after a sealion. It is too difficult for Germany to continuelly land reinforcements (it takes a transport 2 turns to get from Germany’s major IC to North America). Germany doesn’t have the money to buy naval units to defend all those transports, refill the the transports with land units, and keep Russia off their back door. USA can place thirty units within two spaces of their capital every turn (assuming they have enough money). Any Canadian territories that USA liberates will add to the American income (since London has been taken).

The way I see it, Germany going for USA is playing into the Allies’ hands. USA’s biggest difficulty is figuring out how to cross oceans in order to have an effect in the rest of the world. If Germany crosses the ocean, you are removing USA’s biggest difficulty.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I think the only way to conquer USA is with a very clever surprise attack coming from Italy, Japan and Germany in the same turn- preferably before USA can benefit from their wartime economy.

This is amazing. If you go immediately for an ANZAC activated Brazil, you can have two ANZAC infantry in Gibralter or Morocco at the end of turn 3, just in time for America to come across the ocean on turn 4.

@Noll:

You can’t move in the Atlantic prior to war

I know. I took that into account. That’s why the Atlantic transports will arrive after the Pacific transport.

This seems pretty viable to me. Especially if you send some of USA’s starting naval force to escort the transport. In order to Japan to go catch this transport, they have to move out of their way (assuming an India or ANZAC crush).

You could back this up by moving a few transports through the Atlantic as well. SZ 91>82>71>80. If the USA is kept out of the war for the whole three rounds, this fleet will arrive in Persia two turns after the Hawaii transport does.

@Razor:

@special:

So as a house rule an atom bomb could for example destroy an IC (actually remove it from the board)

I am not sure who that would benefit ?

Lets say US bombs the major IC in Germany for a full 20 damage every turn, so Germany must spend more than 11 IPC to build one unit (unless the rules are changed again). Now Germany dont need a major IC there, but there are no way to remove it, so they must pay.

Next turn US drop the A-bomb and the whole major IC is removed from the board. So Germany buy a minor IC, that can only take 6 damage. Unless US nuke Germany every turn, the nazies now pay 4 IPC’s extra for the first unit and not 11 IPC’s extra like when they had a major there.

So who does the A-bomb benefit ?

If you bomb a major into desolation, Germany has to pay 11 IPC to build that first unit. If you nuke a major, Germany has to pay at least 12 IPC to build that first unit. After that initial turn, you are right that Germany will be better suited to have a minor and pay a penalty of 4 instead of a major paying a penalty of 11. But it doesn’t end there. Rebuilding a IC means that penalty ends at 12. Bombing a major means 11 IPC penalty, plus 1 for each additional unit.
Clearly SBRs have the greater potential for economic damage.

But nukes should be thought of differently. They should have the potential to change a game. Say, lower the IPC value of a territory in addition to severe damage to ICs or units?

I have an option to be considered.

Keep the US and Chinese economies separate as they already are in the rules. US has the ability to buy Chinese infantry to be placed per normal China rules at the cost of 5 IPCs per infantry. The elevated cost is representative of those expensive airlifts over the Himalayas.
Also, perhaps the US should only be allowed to place Chinese infantry (at 5 IPCs) in Sikang, Szechwan, or Yunnan to represent the limited range of an airlift.

@knp7765:

In one game I played a few months back, I think it was Alpha+2, both Germany and Italy failed to take France round 1.  Then UK sent some stuff in to back up the units France was able to purchase and believe it or not, Germany failed a second time.  This time Italy managed to finish off France though.  Very weird.  Axis lost that game by the way.

I’ve seen this happen. Makes for an exciting couple French turns.

You spend 5 IPC for a 1/72 chance at getting the Tech you want most.
Take into account that some techs are next to useless for some nations (e.g. cheaper naval units for Russia or rockets for USA or Japan) and it is quite a risk.

If the Axis never takes control of the Gibralter, how do you keep the Allies from entering the Mediteranean? Instead of moving three spaces to land in Norway, Denmark, Western Germany or Rome, the USA will move two spaces to land in Southern France and break your SBR plan. Now the USA can threaten Paris, Northern Italy and Rome all at the same time.

Do you really think Italy can get the start they need without taking Morocco and securing the north African NO?