In my experience with Colonial Garrison India is the best location but requires a US IC in Sinkiang. Not that this is a bad thing. Australia seems to just keep japan from waltzing into Australia but that only saves England from loosing 3 IPCs. South Africa is just too far away from the action to be of much use.

Non Colonial Garrison Egypt can be quite nasty for the Axis a few rounds into the game if the conditions are favorable for such. And trading it back and forth with Germany can even work to your advantage.

Reagan was elected mostly on the hostage crisis as I recall. Yes the economy was in bad shape under Carter but in a different way from what will be happening by fall of next year. What has passed so far is just the tip of the iceberg and has been along time coming for various reasons. I would not be surprised if we went into a full scale depression.

Also consider that the average American is nowhere near as politically savvy as posters on a site such as this so the approval ratings for congress I think will not matter. I have noticed that the Dems are playing it very safe this time around after '04 and that the Republicans are acting like the Dems who figured anybody could be beat Bush. Ie. all your arguments and it will be a cake walk slam for the Republicans.

I agree with switch's assement. I also think the Democratic canidate will win this election. Look at what happened with the Democrats in '04 after trying to appeal to the more fringe elements of the party none of the Democratic canidates were electabile to mainstream America. I think the Republicans will end up doing the same this year. I also think that Reaganomics regurgitated is not going to sell very well by the time of the national elections when the country is in a reccession.

I am not used to using bids since that was eliminated in the out of the box rules so Russia has become rather rote for me. 2 tanks 1 fighter and an artillery and attack Bello and West Russia. I doubt my attacks would really change due to a bid in Ukraine and I am almost certain my purchases would not as I feel Russia needs the additional hardware while it is easy to aquire and the existing infantry can be used.

Let me say that in this case I think Bean is right. Before we started using the LHTR HBs were what cleaned up the IJN. Now in these cases it was never a from the start strategy. Someone would build up some bombers and get heavies. At that time they would simply send in whatever fleet they had and the heavies. Since this occurred latter in games generally there was a base to hit the IJN with or it was out at sea after the Americans. And also in some games long range was also added in.

All that aside does everyone still think with nerfed heavies that going back to each bomber being capped by the territory as opposed to all is such a deal breaker? Or say each bomber is capped by the territory limit with a limit on bombers that can be employed per attack. Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.

I really like the "Tactical Bombing Raid" suggestion that seems to have merit. I still do not see this change as an automatic slam dunk for the Allies. If the US is buying Bombers each and every turn Japan is totally unmolested and only UK is fighting in Africa. I also think that AA would come into play as well. My view on this is currently the only nations really at risk of any SBRs are Russia, Germany and England(by Germany only) Germany can be theoretically maxed out by 3 bombers 2 hitting Germany with rolls of 5 and 1 hitting Southern Europe at 6. IF the same 3 Bombers attacked Germany and all rolled 6 the damage merely jumps from 16 to 18 no real big difference. I do think this change would provide more opportunities for SBRs against Asian ICs of Japan, England, and the US.

I am wondering also if this being a good change in LHTR was the nerf to heavies which were overpowered whether they were on a SBR or just a regular attck. 2 dice at 4 is no joke.

Lastly in regards to Jens Comments I am currious how many times Russia has a Bomber or Rockets? The reason I ask is I have bought a bomber with Russia in atleast 4 games I know of 2 were first round purchases and lets just say that is not advisable. Rockets is giving up atleast 1 tank a round until it is achieved again something Russia is hard pressed to do.

dezrtfish if you are looking for some good Soviet Marches from the time period the RKKA section at this site http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/index.php has a huge number of them. "Esli zavtra voina" is one of my favorites. I really like the Soviet marches from the time period as they are quite stirring.

Perhaps, but I was more talking about a modified LHTR rules situation wher add ing one to the best dice restrains heavy bombers. Also there is AA to consider and I also think this might possibly make added ICs which are generally in low cap territories more viable targets. I think as it stands now SBRs are basically worthless.

Alot of times when playing A & A F-T-F we put on military marches from the time period. If anyone is interested in military marches this site http://www.gridcogames.com/HOI%20Stuff/military_music.htm has a nice selection from various time periods.

[EACH]

OK anybody that has the OOB rules knows the major typo with SBRs. Upon closer inspection the OOB rules state that EACH bomber is capped by the territory limit. Then the obvious typo of which is greater cash on hand or the resulting role. MY question is this, if each bomber was capped at the territory limit as opposed to all bombers would it make buying bombers and SBRs a worthwhile strat?

Ivan if you want to play test it again I will take Allies, ADS ABatlemap, play by forum.

I think round one is too early. To have a navy to add ships to will require an aircraft carrier for the Baltic fleet, which is not a bad move by itself. However; this only leaves 9 IPCs, most likely three infantry. This is starting to really thin down Germany's land units for round two. Also by placing it round one this telegraphs Germany's intentions. Now the US and UK have their round one to gear up for a naval battle in the Atlantic. I am not sure exactly how Beans Naval battle with Jen went early but since I knew she was going for an alleged link up in SZ7 I was able to disrupt her plans. As an allied player seeing this (the IC) I would dedicate England to fleet destruction, send the US completely after Japan (minus eastern starting units) and the Soviets directly after Germany by land. That is 24 IPCs and growing the Germans have to contend with on land and a dwindling 30 IPCs by sea. That math doesn't look so hot for Germany to me.

If I were to pursue such I would wait until I had grabbed some money out of Africa and allowed the Allies to reveal where they are focusing their efforts. I also think SZ7 has too much focus put on it as it is the magical link up spot for the two German fleets. I further think Germany is better served if pursuing a Naval strategy by developing two separate Navies. That I do have first hand experience in.

I do want to give a thumbs up to Ivan for play testing this. I play F-T-F nightly with the same opponent and  we try all sorts of things like this to reduce the sameness and try new and wild ideas. I don't understand why more of this isn't done here. I mean I can understand not wanting to go out on a limb in Tournament; but if its just a game, its just a game.

My place is almost invisible in the photo and the places you can see were scrapped.

[C]

CV = Cruiser  AViation

I will also say in regards to dice I am having to adjust slightly to using diceys  and not real dice. I agree with Emperor Mollari  that factoring in the possible outcome of the dice is a huge part of the game. Besides I don't understand the LL stuff anyway.