@DoManMacgee nah dude you’re good its fine. you pretty much covered my concerns about the axis powers and actually showed me a new way to attack the British fleet do thanks for that! Ifk I guess playing with NOs is kinda just personal preference for people. Personally I like it because it involves some pretty insane games as well as it gives some irrelevant territories a purpose of existence to be taken or liberated by the nations imo. R&D is another fun one because it could totally turn the tides of the game to one side or the other instead of having the same half arse game every time. But yeah 🇯🇵 is gonna be Japan and go nuts on the allies but they’re pretty much subjected to their own little fighting ring. Otherwise that’s pretty much it for my concern on protecting Africa, thx for ur opinion dude I really appreciate it. Hears to roll dice together one day.
We’ve taken to adding 1 extra infnatry in Yunan province. Japan can still smoke the flying tiger but it requires trading initiative elsewhere by bringing at least 2 fighters to the battle. The OOB build makes the J1 demise of Yunan a formality.
I’m interested in trying out the variant (mentioned in a previous post) where the US can move the fighter to another province at setup.
For purely defensive purposes, buying infantry cannot be beat. When you can swap in an offensive piece (artillery or tank) without decreasing the number of units you’re putting on the board, this is well-advised. The relative cost of units and their defending capability seems to be balanced such that quantity is quality.
For example, Russia starts the '41 version with 30 IPC. For that money you can buy 10 inf OR 8 inf and a tank, etc, etc… OR 3 fighters. If you benchmark every 30IPC purchasing combination against an attacking force of 4inf and 5 tanks (nearly a 50/50 battle with about a 2% chance of mutually assured destruction if you purchased 10 inf), the results are telling:
10 inf - 49% chance of winning [2 * 10 = 20 hit points or 20/6 = 3.3 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 38% chance of winning [2 * 8 + 1 *3 = 19 hit points or 19/6 = 3.2 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter - 16% chance of winning [5 * 2 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 4 = 17 or 17/6 = 2.8 average hits]
3 fighters - 0.02% chance of winning [3 * 4 = 12 points or 12/6 = 2 average hits]
No combination of possible purchases perform better than 10 inf in this scenario.
However, when playing against a German Goering that likes to over-extend poorly defended fighters or bombers to gain a couple of IPCs, it’s nice to have the offensive capability to wipe them off the board. I have found this is best accomplished by pushing infantry forward (protecting your offensive pieces from overwhelming counter-attack) and keeping a mix of infantry, artillery and tanks within striking distance of the front line.
For offensive purposes, the best mix of units for the same 30 IPCs, baselined to a 50/50 battle of your 10 infantry against a defending 6inf + 1 artillery (approximately 1% chance of a draw):
10 inf - 50% [10 * 1 = 10 points or 10/6 = 1.7 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 60% [8 * 1 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
6 inf, 3 art - 81% [3 * 1 + (3 + 3) * 2 = 15 points or 15/6 = 2.5 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr - 42% [5 * 1 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
3 ftr - 0% [3 * 3 = 9 points or 9/6 = 1.5 average hits]
For purely offensive considerations, the optimum combination of units in this scenario is 6 inf and 3 art at 81% chance of victory with 4 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in close second at 80%. No combination of purchases which include a fighter score better than 53% (4 inf, 2 art and 1 fighter happens to be the specific combination in this case). Again, there appears to be a quality in quantity that supersedes just quality. It may go without stating, but if attacking a territory with an AA gun, the numbers will be even worse for the fighter purchases.
For the two scenarios above, the most balanced purchase (averaging the %won for each purchase in its offensive capacity and defensive capacity) is 7 inf, 1 art and 1 tank. This particular purchase is the second best defensive purchase (next to 10 inf) and only 4% less potent than the best offensive purchase (6 inf and 3 art).
I’m not against fighters or bombers, they certainly have their place I just haven’t found justification for purchasing them when playing as Russia (or Germany for that matter) - especially in the early rounds.
Similar conclusion are drawn with respect to naval units - more cost-effective units (subs and especially destroyers) are typically better than fewer high-powered units (battleships and especially cruisers).
Excepting special circumstances (such as no time to get infantry to a developing hot-spot on the map or needing to sandbag funds for a massive naval build against enemies squatting in your sea-zone) a good rule of thumb seems to be to maximize the number of attack/defend points your are bringing to the board, first, and spread over as many units as possible, second.
We have gravitated to the 1941 OOB with the Dardanelles closed mod and an allies bid of 9. This variant has led to the longest (most balanced) games.
Take this with a grain of salt as I mostly play with my 3 younger sons who are prone to gamble on tech and make ill-advised attacks occasionally.
What we have found is that the European front is well-balanced (especially if the US doesn’t go full KGF - hard to justify KGF given the Japanese power imbalance in the far East in 1941 Anniversary) but the Japanese can easily steamroll China and nearly all far-East, middle East and Pacific UK assets in a few rounds. The combined pressure from Japan and Germany in Russia then becomes overwhelming a bit too early in the game. To extend the grace period for Russia dealing with only Germany, the 9 IPC bid for the Allies typically go to one inf in Yunan (otherwise, it is a priority target J1 and the Flying Tiger squadron is lost) and the other two inf at Allies discretion between Egypt and/or India.
I make no claim to having reached some Panacea of balance but these mods have resulted in some rich games for us.
Alternatively, 1941 OOB (Dardanelle’s closed) and no NO’s has been pretty balanced. This is easier to execute, especially for newer players, but takes away from the experience in my opinion. NOs add a nice layer of depth to the game and can result in some interesting variation in strategy for both sides.
I’m new player and I have a doubt. Looking the 1941 setup, it’s seem too easy, in my opinion , for the Germany attempting England invasion at the first turn. Just a destroyer in sea and few units, if you calculate the punch is a 50/50
Not sure how you came up with those figures, or what you consider to be an ‘EASY’ victory, running this in dice sim, the BEST outcome I got was an 8% chance:
You’ll find that the best approach to the Allies is a slow burn. The Axis start off with way more stuff than you, and the 41 scenario just takes that divide to the extreme. It’s best to stay back and slowly accumulate advantage before making your big push. In most cases, defense is stronger than offense in A&A (i.e. INF attack at 1, but defend at 2, and FTRs attack at 3, but defend at 4), so try to use that to your advantage when possible.
One more note for USA. Rather than go straight for Japan’s jugular, try parking the fleet in the SZ that contains the “Solomon Islands” Territory. It’s a nice territory to camp out in with your fleet, as it:
Puts you within 2-moves of Australia, New Guinea, Borneo, Dutch East Indies, and Philippines, the Pacific territories that are either worth a lot of money, are part of NOs, or both.
Keeps you within 2-moves of West US, your spawn point for new units, so new reinforcements will always be on the way and you always have a safe point to retreat to if Japan is too strong for you.
Keeps you more than 2-moves away from SZ63 (Japan’s spawn point for new units), so Japan will never be able to send a large amount of units your way without first spending a turn moving their units towards you (and thus, giving you a hint that Japan is planning on attacking you).
Just food for thought. Of course, Japan has ways to play around you basing your fleet in the Solomon Islands, but that mini-game of fleet positioning is part of the fun of A&A’s Pacific Theater.
My play group also plays with national objectives and low luck most times. Some things we’ve tried that helps is first and foremost that China is allowed to exit Chinese territory so that Japan can’t let them grow out of of control with no consequence, and also that China’s move is linked to Russia instead of US, so they get to go before Japan and not have to lose the flying tigers. (We’ve also tried a modified version where we just change the placement so that the Flying tigers fighter survives.)
Russia picked its battles, knocking off small garrisons in Beloroussa and Eastern Ukraine which prevented him blitzing thru more tanks to take out Moscow.
He ended up making big attacks on Moscow twice, but he failed because he didn’t reinforce his front well enough even with all that money that came with taking London on G1. By the time he had enough to make a stronger attack on Moscow, UK and US were already doing the Polar Express and had taken France. Japan had weak rolls in China and not enough ground forces to threaten Moscow as well.
In addition, 5 US fighters landed in Moscow by that time.
Strategies to win with the Allies: Kill Germany First (KGF).
Bomb the Germans with USA, UK invasion force (with some USA support)
Russia holds, expands as western allies open new front.
Japan can help Germany hold on by back door pressure on Africa (take UK money) Japanese ftrs landing in Europe to help defend key territories.
Summarizing… if playing to win, games will go mostly along these lines. Of course, the allies can always TRY to get cute and go after Japan, but that is VERY HARD, especially against a good Jap player, mainly because there is no true monetary reward for USA when confronting the IJN.
Ups, my fault. Gibraltar is not considered a canal, so in theory u can pass with transport, but only to be stopped by the destroyer as mentioned earlier in this topic.
BTW: We play Gibraltar-Morocco as canal as a house-rule, perhaps that explains my post above.
I got the game last month and am playing my first game slowly with my GF. We are really enjoying the battle between Germany and Russia. I landed jet power on my first turn with Germany and so I have abandoned building any navy and have focused on using fighters to stop and naval presence in the Atlantic. Forcing the US or UK to have carriers or lots of warships to escort transports across. Also I have found the game to be quite balanced….our match is really up in the air right now. I had my first Barbarossa push and Russia was able to hold me off because I tried to push too far too fast, and they now pushed me out and I’m having to rebuild my eastern European front to push again. Japan is having a field day but my GF built an Indian factory and is churning out three UK tanks/infantry every turn which is slowing me down.
I really feel that the game is 50/50 at this point, because Japan is almost able to start pushing into Russia from the East, Germany is now having to deal with UK/US incursions from the West and Italy is still trying to push the UK out of Africa and take that money from them.
Really exciting for us both right now!
But to answer your questions, the dynamics do feel slanted to a KGF, it only takes a turn to transport units from US to Africa, while it is at least two turns to get troops into the fight from the US on the pacific coast. Plus Germany is a total of 13 spaces from all three allies capitals while Japan is wayyyy farther. It is just less time consuming to take Germany first…which allows less time for buildup for defense by the Germans.
I decided to write up my strategies for 1941 scenario.
Buy 1 tank, 2 art, 6 inf
take Gibraltar with either two inf or 1 inf and 1tank, this allows Italy to get a National objective bonus by taking either Egypt or Syria on its turn. Don’t worry about losing the transport you won’t be using it to defend the Mediterranean that’s Italy’s job.
Attack UK destroyer with cruiser and sub in baltic. attack cruiser and destroyer with sub and fighters on nw europe and germany. attack BS w/ sub, bomber and fighter from norway.
take E Poland w 2tanks czech and 2 inf poland, Take Baltic w inf nwe, art ger, and everything left on poland, take Ukraine with everything in bugaria.
You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.
There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…
Put some allied (UK/USA) fighters with that stack of forward Russian troops and you should be able to safely get to/hold Eastern Poland. That territory is a key piece in the theatre of war. Whoever controls that (Germany/allies) can effectively dead zone 6 territories that it borders. Also, those allied fighters are not out of play based in EPL. In conjunction with the a/c strategy that Argothair posted for an allied navy, the ftrs can even hit france.
Thanks for the feedback sjlr1! In terms of tech, are rockets particularly great in europe/africa? For one game I’ve had is that with a German-Russo Stalemate with Italy trying to contest Africa with America, (With an Italian Industrial Complex on Egypt), and both the Soviets and Americans had developed rockets. So they kept on around the clock strategic bombing and rocket strikes on the Industrial Complex in Germany and the Italian Industrial Complex in Egypt, forcing the two Axis powers to constantly repair their factories. On turn 5, three bombers from U.S. all got a six during a strategic bombing on Italy’s Egypt Industrial Complex, completely shattering Italy’s already fragile economy. By turn 7, the around the clock bombing forced Italy to withdraw from Africa completely and Germany, being bogged down by U.S., U.K. and USSR bombings and rockets, were purchasing less and less units. By turn nine, Japan also got kicked out of the Asian mainland, and was stuck with the home isles and an IC in the East Indies. At the same time, Italy only retained the boot as the Russians and a few British mechanized infantry took the Balkans. By Turn nine, Italy had capitulated, with Germany only retaining Germany and Norway. After Germany fell, the Allies won with a total of 15 Victory Cities. The combination of Strategic Bombings and Rockets forced Italy and Germany back when they seemed to have an initial advantage. So are Rockets a tech that the European Powers should aim for?
Rockets are a great tech for the USSR and UK, as the UK can reach either Italy or Germany with its AA in the British mainland, and if the Japanese or italians have built an IC then the one in india can do harm as well. The USSR starts of with 3 AA guns, and all can reach Italy or Germany, which can be devastating. Most of the time, USSR needs most of its money buying infantry and tanks to fight the Germans but can afford a few tech tokens early in the game. It’s a little less useful for the US unless they put their AA guns on a transport and shuffle them somewhere (Okinawa or Iwo Jima against Japan, B United Kingdom against Germany or Italy), which can be a bit tedious. And if the US and UK spam bombers like you said, the Axis will be hurting badly! You could try playing with the Escorts/Interceptors optional official rule if you wish.
Hope this helps
They can be, goof2658, but Japan has the option of moving two of its carriers over to Tokyo Bay on J1, and up to four fighters can land there after the Pearl Harbor / San Diego J1 attacks. That’s plenty of protection against one bomber.
So, if you want to maximize your attack on Asia, rather than your attack on the US Pacific navy, you can kind of stack up near Tokyo instead of stacking in the Caroline Islands. Depending on how many of your fighters survived, this is often a good idea anyway, because your stack may not be safe in the Carolines.
I would like to add that I haven’t played without National Objectives so maybe my advice means nothing. The US benefits from NOs a lot, so maybe that will help the Allies?
Actually, the allies lose their National Objectives quickly, whilst the Axis attain (and keep) theirs. This makes playing with National Objectives more advantages to the axis.
Overall, no NOs means IPC income is less for all involved. Units are more valuable, especially reusable ones (like planes and transports). Once the allies make this initial investment(s) in these type of units and does not lose them, the can have a fighting chance in the game.
The Axis do have an advantage. Japan 1941 is a beast.
I do reccomend using National objectives.
We let China be controlled by The Soviet 1941 and use money (starts with 7 ipc and same movement/build options). If hoj watt give China objektivet "No foreign ally in China except starten fighter inom +1.
It helps China a lot.
The most effective allied strategy is to KGF. For this main reason, Germany should fatten up and not lose the war by ensuring many infantry as part of their buys. Japan will be unstoppable by round 5 (at the latest) since There is no good way to slow Japan enough that really makes a difference. Japan can even fly a ftr or two to Europe to help keep the allies off Fortress Europe.
Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.
However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:
(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.
That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.
Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side. I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.
Thinking about this comment, imagining how this would go:
“I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 12.”
“No way, I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 14.”
“Chump change, I’ll play Axis against an Allied bid of 15.”
“All right, I’ll take the Allies with a 15 bid.”
As this topic has fallen asleep, I want to discuss the allied bidding strategies in aa50-41, no tech, low-luck, bid: 13 IPC
I - Russian fighter
a) fighter on the western front, maybe on Caucasus to eventually kill the German transport in the med or to Karelia to make a German assault to expensive (high losing risk and forgoing too many other targets) and eventually killing the lone German transport (if the cruiser attacked the UK destroyer)
The 3 IPC left can be used for any allied country, e.g. an infantry in Egypt
b) fighter on the eastern front to Buryatia to kill the transport in SZ 62
b1) With 3 IPC go to the US and buy an infantry on the Philippines, land the fighter there. 3 Inf + 1 Fighter is hard for Japan lacking one transport and having no shore bombardment
b2) With the 3 IPC go to UK, e.g. Egypt, land in Yakut und go to the western front against Germany
b3) With an infantry bid in Burma or India: land in Yunnan. Yes, this is a sacrifice, but 3 Inf + 2 Fighters just allow the Japanese to clear the country, but probably not conquer it. This will slow the Japanese very much in moving against India.
Bid: 1 Inf to Buryatia and 1 tank to Soviet far east and one to Stanovoj C.
attack Manchuria with 4 Inf + 2 Tanks - 2,5 units left is the expected result in low luck, means 2 tanks or 2 tank + 1 inf
a hard punch against Japan but no bid for Africa/Europe
IIIa destroyer in SZ2
While SZ 2 is still attractive, only 2 subs + fighter + bomber is a safe deal.
Which means Germany has to sacrifice one fighter in SZ 12 for at least one battle round to secure the Italian fleet.
IIIb destroyer in SZ12
in SZ 12 the italien fleet is endangered severely so Germany must attack here.
both attacks, SZ 2 with 1 sub+fighter+bomber and at the same time SZ12 with sub+2 fighter make both somewhat risky, probably losing a fighter for Germany too.
the 5 IPC remaining will probably be a UK tank in Egypt or a Russian tank on the front against Germany
IIIc a sub in SZ12 and a sub in SZ 35
the one in SZ 12 is to threaten Italy, while the one in SZ 35 wants to harrass Japanese ships or lone transports
Buying both at the same time is one option, the other is buy only of of those subs and some ground units
IV - pro Russia
buy any units for Russia for 13 IPC placing them on the front with Germany
V pro UK
buy any units for 13 IPC for UK, maybe to strengthen either India oder Egypt/Africa
If Italy can take Africa for IPCs and keep its fleet intact for 4-5 turns Italy can start doing good. One game Germany launched an unsucssesful invasion of UK. Then Italy came out of nowhere and took the UK with one tank left and the US fleet was 3 sz away. Game ending move. Italy has potential.
hm i was talking about an italian complex in egypt, bought on IT2 😉 here is what happend.
in a KIF game, G1 took egypt. so yes axis did get italy its 2nd NO and 20+ IPC for one or two rounds but it dindt help. IT was SBRed so heavily there was no point in repairing factory damage. he was basically down to purtchasing 2-3 inf a turn… and with italian navy sunk at round 4 or 5 only a defesive tool for germany ( africa retaken by allies at that point.)
so we have come to the conclusion that italy really needs an IC in egypt to be of any help to germany. by the time allies have taken egypt and the IC , japan will be there to enter land war against US in africa. an IC really commits one of UK/US to really fight for africa or UK goes under 20 IPC… this gains time for japan to reach the european theatre, this takes pressure of germany.
if G1 takes egypt, italy can only shuffle about 6 -10 units over to africa before his navy is sunk. plus he cant really produce in italy cuz he needs to repair factory damage.
A big thing in this game as allies as well is to keep German and Italy with as low of an income as possible. I know that sounds obvious, but it is harder said than done. Do NOT abandon Karelia! That is a terrible idea. UK1 can land 2 figs there along with 2 extra russian inf being built giving you 11 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 2 fig, 1 AA gun. Following on UK2 they should begin landing atleast, but with luck more, 4 ground units a turn there. Yes G can take it, but that stack will be destroyed the following turn by the UK. US should be in africa at the end of turn 2 in force. Do not let Italy get both of her NOs for more than 2 rounds, do not let Germany get 3 for free. If you SBR, do it to Italy first. Germany can only build 10 units a turn (unless they buy an IC) and rely on Italy to stack france with INF. Be sure to threaten atleast 2, with luck 3, imporantent territories with drops (usually france, italy, and berlin). And try to get russia her 2nd NO by turn 4 or 5 so they can afford to hold off the Japan monster.
One purchase that works well for me on R1 is 6 art 2 inf. Place the inf in Kar, art in moscow. On R2 buy mostly/all tanks, move all moscow and karelia forces into Belorussia and put a good stack of units into Eastern Ukraine. Typically you will have on Belo: 13 inf, 8 art, 1 arm, on Ukraine 4 ish inf. Plus your 6 arm in back may force the Germans to pull back (doesn’t always work depends on G’s purchases, but that is alot of Russian punch has odds vs 15 inf 10 arm or 5 inf 18 arm), and if you get the Germans out of East Poland that is always a very good thing.
True that it is never worthless. However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player. The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology. Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?
As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways. However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.
Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan. The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.
I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?
I don’t understand the way you play Russia. It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception. Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.
I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.
Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there? Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry. Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways. Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.
Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn. Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each. Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.
Not really. The Indian AA is already in range of Russia. The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.
Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit. Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster. Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?
Fair enough. Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though. They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.
In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two. They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.
Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game. I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3. However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.
Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack. That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.
If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.
If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.
UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea. It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them. If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.
Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs. If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic. If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.
Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1. Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.
We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines. I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.
Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game. However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.
I’m on your side in LL now, I took the Axis the last 3 times and it’s been a total romp LL. The way the game is designed, where the dice are rolled, you’re probably going to have a dual-win% in Kar/Egy around 30%, whereas in LL they’re afterthoughts, almost 100%. I’d say these are two different games entirely.
OK, voting is over, China inf bids won but by a very small margin. I’ll move the discussion over to the League discussion forum and we’ll see what people think there! Join in and we can influence how the game will be played! 🙂