Custom ipc's

G5 is possible, but not with a G1 attack. Japan can occupie russian terretories behind china in G4 and take 4 IPCs from the far east, without leaving too much planes in Japan/Mandschuria. Sea Lion is not an option. Russia grows too big. You are right! A combined attack on Russia is my favourite solution, too. G5 or G6 for capturing Moskau is realistic. We call this tactic “Panzerwalze”.

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.

den krieg eeft gelijk vanwaar zijde misschien? Belg of niet-Belg? ^^

no. “Collect 10 IPCs each turn that Japan is not at war with the United States and has not invaded French Indo-China or made an unprovoked declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC. When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union.” It wouldn’t be unprovoked.

Thank you for your last post. The jerk part was a little pot shot at your username. My apologies.

Are you sure , that you do not have a tweeny-weeny doubt nibbling in the back of your mind … maybe he has it?! I was reluctant at first, because  thought it’ll affect my move… but on reflection… there is another smaller, better and niftier way to deal with that.  Hence wrote what i did. Did take into account “Cow”'s fantastic  - J1 offense.  In fact, to be honest it was my biggest challenge to overcome. OK. Happy thinking  :evil:

Regarding SZ 110, I got hosed one time on a UK scramble. Usually as Germany, I send 3 fighters, 3 Stukas, 1 bombers and sometimes 1 sub to SZ 110. Our UK player had gotten in the habit of not scrambling in order to save the RAF for future action. Well, this one game I made the mistake of just assuming UK would not scramble. I sent 2 fighters, 2 Stukas and 1 bomber to SZ 110. The other fighter and Stuka I sent to kill the French fleet in SZ 93. Well, UK taught me a lesson. They scrambled and wiped out my planes. I didn’t even kill all the ships in the channel. Never made that mistake again.

This is why I interpret IPCs in A&A as abstract and flexible. Lets looks at some examples by Region from Revised up to G40… Canada: from 4 ipcs up to 7 ipcs America (the continental USA): from 28 ipcs up to 45 ipcs Africa: from 11 ipcs up to 20 China (unoccupied): from 4 ipcs up to 12 ipcs Western Europe (France/Holland/Denmark): from 6 ipcs to 14 ipcs Germany: from 10 ipcs to 14 ipcs Australia: from 2 ipcs to 8 ipcs United Kingdom: from 8 ipcs to 8 ipcs Japan: from 8 ipcs to 8 ipcs Hawai: from 1 ipc to 1 ipc Philippines: from 3 ipcs down to 2 ipcs I could go on, but the point here is that there is no hard and fast relative scale for how these values are being worked out over successive boards. Sometimes the same region nearly doubles in value, sometimes it triples, sometimes it stays roughly the same. This is a very strong indication to me that IPCs are not the iron values sometimes suggested, or that IPC values in A&A are somehow set in stone. They have been changing to suit the gameplay for a while now. I want to point this out because I think it speaks to a more general feeling I get, that money/production should be flexible, to suite the needs of the gameplay, rather than something highly rigid or that must somehow retain consistency along historical lines, or to match up with previous boards. It just seems arbitrary for the most part, and more so when you look at the values side by side for successive boards. Clearly IPCs are there for the gameplay. They are distributed in the way they are for gameplay purposes, not in some highly fine tuned or particularly accurate spread for historical or “real world” reasons. If for example, China’s total value can increase by 300%, or Australia can go up by 400%, while Hawaii stays exactly the same, and Philippines is decreased by 33%, then why should we expect anything consistent out of IPCs anywhere on the gamemap? To me this is encouraging, because it suggests that IPC value and “collect income” can be tweaked for game balance (on a regional basis) without upsetting some underlying foundation. The fact that these values have changed so much over time, indicates a high level of abstraction going on. The thing to notice is that IPCs are already being counted differently (in terms of relative value) depending on where they are located on the gamemap. I think this is an important thing to bear in mind when considering what IPCs really represent, and to see why gameplay (and not necessarily historical production analogy) is the critical factor in determining how these should be distributed across the map on any given board.