Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
Alpha +1, only for global?
-
Does alpha =1 only apply to global,
Or are the setup and rules change still good if playing only europe or only pacific?
Tha a lot! -
Well, the setup hasn’t been playtested for the half-games, so they may not work.
-
The goal is for the changes to apply to all three games, but so far they’ve only been tested for global.
-
Does alpha =1 only apply to global,
Or are the setup and rules change still good if playing only europe or only pacific?
Tha a lot!Our Battle Group has been using the Alpha + .1 changes for the Europe ‘half-game’ and like them very much. We only changed one of the NOs for the US at war which was to reduce the 15 IPCs for control of the Continental US to 10 IPCs. Also, any ANZAC units were replaced with French units. We are scheduled to play on Jan 8 at which time we will use the 12/15/2010 modified Alpha + .1 Plus Larry’s most recent mods and see how it goes. I really don’t like the airbase in Scotland nor the French fighter in the UK so we might try a game without them.
-
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
-
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
Fair enough! We just wanted the two units to be of a different nationality so they would be used mainly for defense. Granted, they could move on their turn but couldn’t move with the British troops.
-
@Hellmutt:
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
Fair enough! We just wanted the two units to be of a different nationality so they would be used mainly for defense. Granted, they could move on their turn but couldn’t move with the British troops.
Well, changing ANZAC to French also presents the discrepancy that ANZAC moves before Italy while France moves after. Thus, the 2 inf in Egypt, if they become French, can’t shadow the UK forces.
-
@Hellmutt:
The 2 ANZAC inf are supposed to be replaced by 2 British inf, though I think 1 British inf is better to keep the balance
Fair enough! We just wanted the two units to be of a different nationality so they would be used mainly for defense. Granted, they could move on their turn but couldn’t move with the British troops.
Well, changing ANZAC to French also presents the discrepancy that ANZAC moves before Italy while France moves after. Thus, the 2 inf in Egypt, if they become French, can’t shadow the UK forces.
I see your point!..…maybe changing two ANZAC to one British is better.
-
it is better.
ANZAC and UK should be allowed to fight together anyways.
Suggested Topics
