I dont know if this is off on another subject but I wanted to post the results from this weekend……    the Axis have another victory!  Barbarossa on G3. They had better rolls at most of the key battles  A couple of different rolls at a few of the key battles and It would have been diff.    Especially in sea zone 6 for me, Oh well what can ya do. Next time It will be different

@KillOFzee:

i have a question, if i buy a minor IC as Italy, and the same turn I take Egypt, can I place it directly in Egypt, or do I have to hold it a whole turn.

You can only place ICs in territories that you controlled at the beginning of your turn.  You would either have to place that Minor IC on another territory worth 2 IPCs or more, or sell it back to the “bank” and buy it next round.  Then you could place it on Egypt, assuming Britain didn’t take it back.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

It is hard to tell whether or not a counter-Sea Lion (as you put it) helped or hurt America.  For one, all those ships had to have made Germany and Italy’s jobs harder, but on the other hand, that’s less ground units to push out the Japanese.

I think not, because a G1 attack is pretty much (read: basically always) a bad idea.

Whatever you manage to put into those first border territories will die immediately, Germany is making less money (no peace NO), Russia is making more money, Russia can go into the Middle East, and UK has no Sealion threat at all, and can plow into Italy and France starting round 1.

You’re right in that a G2 attack is a much better idea.

Page 9 in the Pacific 1940 Rulebook does the job for me

I don’t understand the point of this thread. Are you supporting a kill Russia first strategy or are you simply giving us a play by play of a game you’re playing?

That is exactly why I attack the Canadian tran/dest asw ell/ Summed up nice Jimmyhat.

I agree with Frank T and Brado… but I build 7 more transport during G2 (which brings them to a total of 10). Italy must focus on Egypt at first (taken at I2) and then hold strong Gibraltar to sceal Med Sea and US footstep to Europe.

Battle for Russia will be long and with a slow start, but will succeed. You have to cause many frontline… and Japan should attack Russia the very first turn.

@ Rock’n Roll : Yes, I won 4 times here…

Just played a game of Global A&A today. I played Japan and Italy, and a friend of mine played germany. I (being used to europe 1940 A&A) said sea lion is a money trap. Now in my opinion sea-lion is twice as effective as a Russian attack, this is because it can eliminate a major allied power very soon in the game. On the other hand if Russia is invaded, than it can offer two quick VCs to the axis cause where a sea-lion would only offer one. So my opinion is split. The one thing I can agree with is that Sea-lion is very viable plan to destroy the allies unlike the lack of time in Europe because of the undivided american attention.

So USA is at war, right? How’s the situation in the DEI?

1. i hope germany won’t snatch those planes. How is the German escort fleet? (the one protecting their transports?)

2. see somewhere below.

3. Has Italy taken Gibraltar already? Take it back ASAP! or block SZ91 immediately if you can’t reach Gibraltar with enough troops.
You can pick SZ91/Gibraltar as your US bridgehead (good reach to basically everywhere)

4. Don’t retreat your Hawaii fleet, keep the pressure on Japan. You have enough money to spawn a fresh one in E-USA, strong enough to withstand Axis fleet/air.

Personally i like the Atlantic sub-approach…
Start with building some subs (about 6 or even more but make sure you don’t loose them, so always watch out for enemy destroyers withing reach) and a destroyer to get those subs around england, you’ll need 1 destroyer to send to SZ91 to block the italians. All these subs will come in very handy later (massacre of the italian fleet and convoy raids in the med (or UK if it falls). If those 2 mid-sea subs are within reach of the US coast, build at least an AC or BB this turn, and always keep at least 1 DD present.
The subs will also make Germany have to worry about their transporter fleet (either bothering their movement or making them have to invest in more ships, which is a good thing). if you have enough money, already buy an AC with 2 fighters (for ex: 6 SUB + 1 DD + AC + 2 FIG = 80IPC), this way the current fleet is completely safe.

Next turn build up your surface fleet:
You don’t need a HUGE fleet, but make sure it is more than strong enough to survive a German (possibly followed by an italian) attack. Ships cost money and bringing them to Europe costs time.
I’d say: at least 1 BB (or 2 if you can afford it), 2 AC’s (filled with 2 fighters and 2 tacs, or 3 fighters and 1 tac), at least 2 destroyers (1 to protect from crazy subs, another one to do some blocking or provoking actions oir suicide runs). never fall shoret of destroyers.

And of course a few transports.  :)

Yes but that would be costly for the Brits.

Its a case of take it and hold as once you have taken it you then give the Allies the opportunity to get 2 more IPCs. Its only 2, but they all add up.

I don’t think a turn 1 invasion would turn out well.

That does help a lot; thanks to all who responded to my questions!

I’ll SBR just about whenver possible.  The risk/reward is now in my favor.  So unless I can get more than 3 IPC for using my bomber elsewhere, I’ll use it to SBR (if I can.)

Why:  Average Cost: 2 IPC; Average Damage: 4 IPC, net 2 IPC, if I can get an extra infantry, it’s better for me, otherwise, bombing is a good alternative to parking.

One to two subs a turn is not a bad idea for the germans. First of all you take away a British NO, secondly building one off the coast of southern France threatens the gibraltar sea zone.  There’s a legitimate chance of knocking out a few transports outside of gibraltar with a few subs from the med and air power from west Germany.  Although to do it you need Italy or Germany to hold Morocco as that’s the only landing space available for fighters and tacs from w Germany.

@questioneer:

Romanian IC???- no way, Larry killed that in Alpha +2- its too much overkill and retricts options to Axis always doing Barbarossa. All Germany does G1 is upgrade, build and steamroll Russia- too much- bad idea IMHO

Indeed, this would push the game in a certain direction…

Oh, and the cruiser is left in SZ 97, so if you also drop Inf.Arm in Greece, the Italians don’t have the power to kill them!