Typical G1 attack includes attacking these two sea zones and most players do not recommend scrambling planes into SZ 110, but am wondering if anything changes in the Europe only game.

This is if there is no bid. I have no meaningful experience with E40 and G40 but it seems like doing Sealion is not worth it, and wanted to hear if people still go a buy that makes Sealion viable. I have seen on youtube videos people sometimes do an ac, dest, sub buy, or ac and 2 transports buy. I also have seen somewhere (i don’t remember where) someone even doing a battleship buy on G1. Buying any sort of ships does not seem to be worth it if Germany wants to keep an open mind about not doing Sealion, unless it specifically wants to invade the Soviet Union through the north, try to deny their 5 IPC NO by making SZ 125 hostile and taking Archangel as early as possible, and give any ships bought on G1/2 a purpose by doing amphibious attacks on Leningrad, setting up a transport shuck on that territory, and so forth.

Even then, it seems more viable to go the “southern route” for Barbarossa as General Hand Grenade puts it because the territories are worth more, there are NO’s for having Caucasus and Stalingrad, and it is also easier for Italy to help too.

This is if there is no bid. I have no meaningful experience with E40 and G40 but it seems like doing Sealion is not worth it, and wanted to hear if people still go a buy that makes Sealion viable. I have seen on youtube videos people sometimes do an ac, dest, sub buy, or ac and 2 transports buy. I also have seen somewhere (i don’t remember where) someone even doing a battleship buy on G1. Buying any sort of ships does not seem to be worth it if Germany wants to keep an open mind about not doing Sealion, unless it specifically wants to invade the Soviet Union through the north, try to deny their 5 IPC NO by making SZ 125 hostile and taking Archangel as early as possible, and give any ships bought on G1/2 a purpose by doing amphibious attacks on Leningrad, setting up a transport shuck on that territory, and so forth.

Even then, it seems more viable to go the “southern route” for Barbarossa as General Hand Grenade puts it because the territories are worth more, there are NO’s for having Caucasus and Stalingrad, and it is also easier for Italy to help too.

Suppose Germany controls Egypt, and an IC is present (whether it’s because there already was one or if Germany built it after capturing seems to be irrelevant). If the player uses the IC to build ground units but the territory is empty otherwise, do they still get the 5 IPC NO of Germany having a ground unit there?

This has probably been asked before but had questions about neutrality restrictions and purchases.

1. When Japan is at war with the Soviet Union, can Japan enter Soviet territories on the Europe side of the board when SU is not at war with Germany/Italy?
2. Can SU enter UK/France/ANZAC territories when the SU is at war with Japan, but none of the UK/France/ANZAC are at war with Japan?
3. Whenever there’s a game where America has to declare war to enter the war (like it had to wait until end of turn 3), can it buy more than 9 units on the turn it is allowed to declare war, or are they still restricted by the 3 unit placement per minor IC?
4. If America enters the war because of a J1 or someone else declares war on it first, can America buy 10 units per IC the first turn it takes after going to war or does it have to wait until the next turn?

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Interesting. I used to think scrambling is fine since I like taking Tobruk as the UK instead of Taranto. I feel like Sealion is not that viable in 2nd Ed 1940, regardless of if it is the Global or Europe only, since UK will take out some German planes. I think Allies have a better chance to win if Germany is doing sealion than barbarossa.

Edit: I have seen some forum threads that talk about baiting Germany into doing sealion, and scrambling into SZ 110 seems to be a way to do it.

Typical G1 attack includes attacking these two sea zones and most players do not recommend scrambling planes into SZ 110, but am wondering if anything changes in the Europe only game.

I agree with your first sentence. Is it because you think it’s better if the US and UK are both focusing on landing troops in France? In some games I’ve played, I found it’s better if the Western Allies are concentrating their landings in the same spot.

Hi,
I know this forum is for the most part inactive but wanted to hear anyone’s thoughts on who should take Italy if it becomes possible to take it. For purposes of simplification I want to leave out the Soviet Union as an answer since the game is probably already over if they are in a position to take the Italian territories and hold them until their next turn. Here were my thoughts. This is not a thread as to IF the Allies should try to take Northern Italy but WHO should take it if it becomes possible.

UK:
Pros:
Gives UK more money to work with (also consider Southern Italy is most likely guaranteed to be in Allied control if Northern Italy is taken)
UK can now have more land units on the continent without buying more transports to compensate.

Cons:
UK might not have the money to sustain both the London IC and N. Italy IC (Being capped at 4 units is not that small of a number for the Italian IC imo)

US:
Pros:
A complex in Europe puts US that much closer to the action
It has the money to sustain both the East Coast IC and N. Italy IC

Cons:
The US does not need the money as much as the UK
It takes longer for the US to reach N. Italy than it would for the UK (1 extra turn)
The circumstances of the game might make it so that it is difficult for US planes to reach the battle unless Vichy France, Corsica, or Sardinia, were legal landing spots because of what happened in earlier rounds.

I think it comes down to if I want the UK to have the income from the territory, or do I want the US to have it because they can use the factory more effectively.

Hi all, I wanted to hear what you guys usually like to do with the transport that begins the game in SZ 98 in the Europe . In my solo games, I have been having trouble with the Allies and am trying to improve my UK gameplay. I know the SZ 98 transport is not a game-breaker but I wanted to know what you guys do with it since UK will not have a 2nd transport that will be able to reach the Middle East and/or East Africa unlike in G40. It seems like these are possible uses with good odds:

• The Tobruk Raid
• Convincing Greece, Persia, or Yugoslavia to join the Allies
• Amphibious assault on Italian Somaliland

I haven’t played a game as UK where I attack I-Somaliland but I don’t like the odds on Ethiopia when I want to do the Taranto raid.

Best of luck in your game! I like to buy tanks since they attack @3 but cost less than fighters. There is the draw back that the tanks have to stay in the territory if I successfully capture one just like any other ground unit. But in my first few games that I played, I was able to get away with buying tanks since Germany would break a few units from its stack to capture certain territories (whether that be Western Ukraine, Rostov, Stalingrad). This would enable my tanks to counter attack territories and still be there by the beginning of my next turn. BUT, since Germany is picking up on the fact that breaking its stack to capture as many territories as possible is not always the best move so I will have to adjust accordingly as well.

@Admiral_Nimitz Thank you for the post! I have usually been buying 1-2 tanks every round. I’ll try out your turn 1-3 buys since in my solo games, Germany usually attacks G3 and sometimes goes the northern route if it made a G1 purchase that makes Sealion possible (like the destroyer, aircraft carrier, submarine purchase).

I am interested by your suggestion to buy a fighter on turn 2 since I like waiting until I am at war to buy planes using the NO IPC’s to help cover the costs. It could possibly help with dealing with the German navy if for some reason they don’t take the necessary steps to protect its ships from a possible scramble from Leningrad or they leave them vulnerable to an attack.