UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

@panther

Thank you!

Hi there,

concerning SZ 95,

Contra: you can bring in less fodder.

Pro: every hit is a kill, nothing could be repaired if dice go bad.

Cheers.
N.

the idea is not to defend every landarea, only the vital ones (italy, germany), then have meches + tanks + planes in range so that you can counterattack anything else.

it is not trivial for US to land in north italy if you defend it with 3-5 units, and are able to counterattack with 15-20 german planes + 20+ german landunits.

german mechs in w germany are able to counterattack most terretories in europe, if the german planes try to stay in range, then it is difficult to land.

the only two terrs that are not “covered” by this strat is norway and s italy. in s italy you need how much you need anyways, and for norway, if your fleet is alive, you can have 5-8 inf in finland, keep your planes within range and then be able to attack with about 25-30 units (depending on how many planes you have).

It is expensive to defend against an enemy that can land everywhere, so rather, counterattack than defend, if you are able to kill one load of americans, then the transports need 3 turns before they are back and able to threathen again.

@MadPup77:

You don’t have to wait a turn to hit Japan. You place them, next turn they’re in SZ 6. You place them in SZ 10, next turn Hawaii, next turn SZ 6.

-MadPup77

If you put a NB in Alaska, they can move in 1 turn into SZ 6, via SZ 8 and SZ 7.

@otahere34 said in Thoughts on a Japanese strategy?:

I have a house rule that aircraft on carriers can launch after the carrier makes its movement, cause in real life, if there were carriers in Japan with planes, the planes didn’t take off and attack midway from there, they took off once the carriers got to midway.

@JayDavis said in Thoughts on a Japanese strategy?:

I have a house rule, when I play the US, I get the Nimitz in 1941.

@Peck said in Thoughts on a Japanese strategy?:

I have a house rule too. German infantry can cross the English channel without a transport because in real life people can swim across too.

This house ruling is fun!

I have a house rule too.

Obviously it’s only the French, aka Frogs, who can swim over the English Channel. It’s called frog suit. Obviously.

But that is not my house rule.

My house rule partly reflects the installment of the Vichy government, partly builds on French swimming technology being adapted by the Germans, partly includes primitive rocket science and partly simply because Germans are sauerkraut.

With my house rule the Germans can bounce over the English Channel. In fact, they can bounce over most of the annoying obstacles, like Gibraltar, Sahara, Himalayas and the Atlantic. They can even bounce behind enemy lines, if need be.

More or less becoming similar to flying Tribbles.

That is my house rule.

I think the game would be more balanced that way and more fun.

@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 have written a rule for this in my 1940 National Advantages

Soviet Union
3.  Scorched Earth
In response to the rapid German success on the eastern front, Soviet leaders left desolation as they retreated. The goal was to leave nothing for the Germans to use against the Red Army.
When you are attacked by an Axis power and more than one round of combat occurred then the attacking Axis power does not collect the IPCs for this territory the turn they capture it. On the third round of combat and onward, you may deal one die of strategic damage to any facility in the territory.

Either economy can pay for research, and both benefit from the results.  War Bonds IPCs may be split between the economies in any way the player likes.