Unit's cost: what's the criteria?

The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

I noticed this question posted by Black Elk in a couple of threads, so I sketched out the following answer which I’ll post in both threads.

I’d be in favour of using the term “Commonwealth” (“the Commonwealth”, “the Commonwealth nations”, etc.).  For the period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII (thus in a time frame which works for A&A 1940), the term “Commonwealth” can be interpreted as referring more or less just to the six self-governing Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire (originally the Irish Free State) and Newfoundland (which, it should be noted, voluntarily agreed to go back to being ruled from London during the Great Depression).

The phrase “(British) Commonwealth of Nations” originated – at first with unofficial status – in the late 19th century, resurfaced (still unofficially) in 1917, and finally received official recognition in 1921.  It was intended to be used in parallel with (or in some cases as an alternative to) the phrase “British Empire”, an example being Churchill’s famous statement that “if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour.”  The “Commonwealth” usage arose in recognition of the fact that a number of British territories had become self-governing – the first such case being Canada, the original “Dominion” – and that therefore they had a greater degree of sovereignty than the Britain’s colonies, protectorates and mandates.

Dominion status was granted to Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907, South Africa in 1910 and the Irish Free State in 1922 (it became Eire in 1937).  Via the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, it was recognized that these six Dominions were equal in status with the UK and that they were “freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  Strictly speaking, it could be argued that the UK was also an equal-status “member” of the Commonwealth rather than its head, but this would be a bit like arguing that the Augustus was basically an ordinary Roman Senator who simply happened to be “first among equals” in the Senate rather than the Emperor (an argument which Augustus himself liked to make).  A similar dynamic existed within the Commonwealth by virtue of the fact that the UK’s (resident) Sovereign was recognized by the Dominions as their (absentee) Head of Statec – so Churchill’s phrase “the British Empire and its Commonwealth” is actually a good description of the asymmetrical relationship that existed at the time.

The phrase “Commonwealth” as it is used today has important differences with what it meant in 1940, since it now covers more than 50 entities.  Back in the 1930s, it essentially referred just to Britain and its self-governing Dominions, of which there were six.  The list started growing after WWII, when India, Pakistan and Ceylon were granted Dominion status, but the only British territories to achieve Dominion status prior to WWII were the six so-called “white colonies” whose population was preponderantly of European ancestry.  So all in all, I think it’s historically justifiable to refer to the A&A 1940 “grey sculpt” block as simply “the Commonwealth,” which is certainly more convenient than the convoluted phrase “the self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”  “The Commonwealth Dominions” (perhaps “the CDs” in shorthand?)  would be my second choice: it’s longer than just “the Commonwealth” but it’s a trifle more accurate since it excludes the UK and thus refers only to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland.

I think the idea of smaller forces being effective against an attack is probably most valid when thinking about the USA navy in both the Atlantic and pacific. Having say three small navies in a “V” formation gives then the advantage of options should one be attacked, while having one large navy would be a stalemate for the most part in the Pacific and usually a loss there. In the atlantic it gives the Axis something to worry about, where a UK fleet parked in one zone can be dealt with quickly and decicivly an multi-zone fleet makes you wonder what he’s up to. Just look at all the resources needed by Germany R1 vs UK, and this is a relatively small fleet compared to what USA can produce.

Good points Gargantua.

Pull them all back and see what happens.  If Germany buys transports for a sea lion attack on London, then go back to Amur and then down into China and help them take and hold Kiangsu and maybe even Hongkong.  You might prevent a Pacific VC win if you are lucky.  Don’t forget you can mobilize new Chinese infantry on top of your Russians.

If Germany does not buy transports and masses troops along the Russian border for a G3 attack, then you better start marching them all West.

However, if Germany launches Barbarossa on G2 they may be too little too late anyway.  A German attack could start out as a mass of tactical bombers, armor, artillery and infantry in Hungary that moves East 1 territory per turn.  Meanwhile 10 mechanized infantry are built each turn in Germany to replace infantry losses.  The mechs also protect the tactical bombers in East Poland.  The schedule is East Poland G2, Belarus G3, Bryansk G4, then Moscow G5 onward.  Ukraine probably  evacuates.

So Germany is attacking Moscow G5, but there are 6 Far East troops in Samara and another 14 units in Novosibersk.  Those replacements make it possible for Russia to hold on as Germany batters Moscow G6, G7, G8, and just maybe the Germans will finally run out of infantry and die.

@knp7765:

In one game I played a few months back, I think it was Alpha+2, both Germany and Italy failed to take France round 1.  Then UK sent some stuff in to back up the units France was able to purchase and believe it or not, Germany failed a second time.  This time Italy managed to finish off France though.  Very weird.  Axis lost that game by the way.

I’ve seen this happen. Makes for an exciting couple French turns.

The answer is no

I’m the creator of the AA Dice Turret.  The Cardboard one.  I use them for every game I play.  You can check out my site for other models as well.

www.thediceturret.com

docfav