Posts made by MacNaughton

@Young:

Life’s to short to argue about what colour the sky is, or how colour should be spelt.

:-D

Thanks very much.

The Italians and Germans have fleets off the coast of DC. USA builds 6 subs. This forces Italy to either move away or stay and attack USA on Italy’s turn. Germany does not participate in the battle when Italy “attacks” USA (by not moving away). Italy does not have any destroyers. Germany has 2 destroyers. Can the USA submarines submerge and retreat after the first round of combat?

If the Axis take Greece, do they get control of the boat? Or does the boat automatically become Allied controlled as Greece is now at war with the Axis?

Totally Australia. You only have to invest half your starting armies to take control of it. That means half your starting units are spread out all over the world holding your stakes. You then slowly move into Asia, making sure to hang on to your African, European, and American territories. Before anyone knows it, you have 15 territories (+5 armies) and Australia (+2).

I’ve been thinking about Italy going for India to free Japan up for Australia. So far, it seems that Italy can’t break through Egypt and the Suez canal fast enough.

@Warplayer12:

i was reading the newspaper, en then i get an idea: a continental war. Every continent (Europe, Asia,Africa etc.) gets their own army and fight each other

That’s fairly alarming. What paper were you reading?  :-D

@Imperious:

Cost 5 IPCs, act exactly as Artillery, Move 2. Attack at 3 in the first round if enemy tanks present.

a 2-2-2-5 unit is basically a boosted Mech, the unit needs unique flavor.

Plain artillery is basically a boosted infantry. And it works great.
Mechanical artillery should have the exact same relationship to Mechanical Infantry as regular artillery has to regular infantry.

I recently targeted USA after a successful Sea Lion. Germany landing in Canada. On the same round, Japan landed in Alaska and Canada on the Pacific map.
It didn’t work in the long run. Russia finally broke Germany’s Eastern wall, Japan lost China and ANZAC (because Italy wasn’t fast enough in taking India). It was obviously only a matter of time (mind you, a very long time) before the Allies won.

I think it is obvious that you are both right on different points. You cannot ignore China entirely, but there’s no point in making it the overwhelming object of Japan’s strategy. If you ignore it entirely, it will buy art and push Japan off the coast taking around 10 or 12 IPCs and two victory cities (1/3 of Japan’s victory requirement). If you make it your chief aim, you will waste a lot of time that Japan can’t afford to lose what with Calcutta building up defenses, ANZAC putting together a navy or air force or something, and USA bringing an economic hammer to bear. And that time will indeed be a waste as there are no victory conditions in China.

The good news for Japan is that China can be severely crippled from the first turn simply by taking Yunnan and a few other territories in the North. From that point on, if Yunnan is held, China can barely do a thing of importance in the whole game. And it only requires a couple infantry a turn and a few support planes for Japan to keep China under the boot.

At the end of the game (it was going way too long) Japan occupied Washington and London but had lost their capital to ANZAC and Berlin had been captured by The Soviet Union. The only powers left in the game were Italy, USSR, India, China and ANZAC. Had the game kept going, the Japanese soldiers in London could have easily liberated Berlin.

@Piet:

I think it states that the JPN planes are landed on the German carriers not Gibraltar

Nice plan by the way, and as a side note, if the US proves too strong you can sail on to the UK and do a a sea lion with the JPNese…

I like this idea. Japan holding London with a LARGE navy should give Germany lots of time to finish off Russia for the European win.

With all this going on, if Russia rolls a couple tanks and mech infantry through the North of China too, China will have the coastal territories liberated by turn 4 and Japan will be sunk by turn 7. I like it.

@daffy2war:

sounds good in theory, only problem is if London is in enemy hands, then when the US lands in Gib. it takes control of Gib. and all its facilities. On the turn after, it can repair all the facilities on Gib. and have it reinforced with fighters. It might buy you 1 turn at the most.

This would only happen if an Axis nation took Gibraltar first. Allied nations do not take territories from other allies even if the capital has been lost.

@eroxors:

What were the game results? When did the Dutch receive their NOs (what was their final income)? Was there any discernible difference in the Pacific?

Thanks for trying it out.

They got the South American NO by the second turn. They kept a Dutch ship in the Pacific the whole game by moving a sub to SZ 52. It took quite some time for ANZAC or India to take control of the DEI as Japan was gunning very fast for Calcutta and all effort had to go toward keeping the capital.
Their highest income was 26 including NOs.
It did not make a difference in the Pacific. This is because the sub fled in order to keep the NO, and Japan never tried for the DEI, and when ANZAC never built enough transports to make use of the newly acquired infantry from the DEI.

Here’s were the Dutch were helpful. They built a ragtag navy of around 5 subs, 4 destroyers and 1 aircraft carrier. They destroyed the Italian fleet in SZ 92 allowing the Americans to land straight into Rome.
What did not work so well for the Dutch was transporting infantry and artillery into French West Africa. It took too long for those units to walk to Egypt to find some Italians to fight.

I tried this out and liked it a lot. Italy having a boost to put them in a better starting position was nice. And it was also nice to have another ally making landings in Europe/Africa, as it seems with my games that UK always falls quickly.

One significant change I tried was making the Dutch connected to France, the same way London and Calcutta are connected– separate economies, but everything else being united. I mostly did this to allow the use of blue pieces for the Dutch. But I liked the result of French African pieces being reinforced by Dutch pieces and being able to move together.

@oztea:

This might work, very well actualy, if all placements are written down in secret. (So that you have to prepare for any eventualities)

And also an IPC Cap per territory
Something like: No more than a 50% IPC increse from what starts there (or even a 100% IPC increse)

If players do this in secret….then you wont see gamble placements like all UKs stuff in the med.
Because italy might exhange some land units for 2 more fighters in south Italy and another boat and combine its fleet.

This rule would need to be tweaked a little bit to allow players to place units in their starting territories that did not originally start with any units. For instance, if GB wanted to stock Africa with more units, or if Chana wanted to move around its starting infantry.

I think that SBRing can be excellent if you pair it with a strong convoy disruption strategy.

I also think that SBRing with escorts is an good way to knock out defending fighters once a nation has decided to turtle. Look at it this way: Russia has a stack of 60 infantry backed by 3 fighters and a handful of tanks in Moscow. With normal attacks, it will take serveral turns to knock out those fighters’ big guns. But if you SBR, Russia has to either let you have access to his facilities (of course if you get past the AA guns), or risk his precious defensive giants. Russia doesn’t really have the money for either if he’s turtled.

If the USA built an IC there, it is because it already smashed any Japanese fleet in SZ6 and the game is already over.

If USA and ANZAC succesfully attack land, who takes control of the land?