UK bid - sub in India fleet.

They the key is having both sides of the map going at same time. This is no way any knock towards any guys games and such.
I know some have time limits to play a country but if you have battle boards on each end of map plus cut back on strategy talking when both players are discussing 1 country which is fine to a certain point then say Germany plays while Japan plays and other side is defending same time.

@Zhukov44:

I’m not convinced the factories would necessarily help Allies.  If Allies can’t afford to protect them, they become liabilities.

A huge difference in AA50 versus previous editions is how seperated/well-defined the two theatres of war are for USA.  Once in one of the theatres, it is very hard if almost impossible to move into the other theatre while still being useful.  An example of what I mean may help.  If USA can establish a presence in the south pacific, either via a navy (hard to do early) or via Australia, she can land fighters into India for support.  Put an IC in Australia to cover these fighters, providing defense on their way to India, where they would again provide defense to yet another IC, and then onto their way to even threaten the middle east with units that have began to filter in from combined UK/US Algeria landings

@Zhukov44:

If UK is pumping ipcs into South Asia it may provide Germany/Italy opportunities in Africa and Europe.

Yes, it would be somewhat of a fine Allied balance, but the US can help Africa landings easier than building a naval force strong enough the threaten the IJN.  Supporting Australia/India with fighters (see above), keeps $5 more in UK coffers (Australia/India) and the third NO out of japans hands.  That’s a $15 IPC swing that more than makes up for less pressence in Africa/Europe.

Unless a destroyer is present, a sub may always just choose to submerge in the opening fire round.

I think the only place in '41 for a UK IC is in SA. Maybe one in Egypt if it survives T1, but it’s pretty universal now that everyone takes it T1 for obvious reasons. I’ve heard the case for one in Australia, but I don’t like that one either. It’s too easy for Japan to take out. On J2 it can easily be taken and for sure on J3. So if you’re going to you’d almost have to wait until B4 to have any hope of defending it. I know if I saw a B1 or B2 buy of an IC in Australia I would gun for it hard with Japan.

The Norway IC I just don’t see working because the Brits don’t really need the extra three unit build, plus for the same SBR reason that a France IC for germany isn’t the best idea.

I guess there could be some games where the US having an IC there could help, but on the whole I think that’s just not a great spot for one.

OK, voting is over, China inf bids won but by a very small margin. I’ll move the discussion over to the League discussion forum and we’ll see what people think there! Join in and we can influence how the game will be played!  :-)

@mojo:

thanks buddy i like it, i’ve been trying to build navy for germany for years.  once in classic i bid 18 bought a AC and put it in the med.  built my fleet up and owned the atlantic.  no units shipped from USA or UK.  it was awesome,  but my buddy built USA in the pacific, russia owned asia,  and  he took japan, so i still lost,  but what a freaking game that was.  i’ll look ya up for a game.

Not a problem, unless you’re flying to Hawaii!  We’re getting a game of Revised & Classic on 05/30/09!

As for the modified sub rules for revised, this is what we used.

Air can only interact with subs when destroyer is present (can be
friendly destroyer if defending, i.e. subs vs. DD, AC with Ftr).

SBR damage limited to value of the territory’s IPC value/turn

normal bid for axis

unit placement change 2 subs from SZ 5 to SZ 8 (this was to offset the fleet in SZ 5 from being destroyed in 1st round.

We played two games with this setup.

First with 6 bid for Axis (2 inf to Libya) Japan took USSR and Germany held.  These changes make it expensive for Allies to shuck shuck.  Germany purchases were 2 subs and all infantry for 3 rounds.

Second game was 12 bid for Axis (2 inf to Libya, 2 inf to Ukr), game could have gone both ways.

Let me know what you think about the modification.  Probably in the wrong forum for this but it’s a continuation of our discussion so I hope it’s ok.

Happy Memorial Day!

So far, I still can’t quite pull the trigger on taking Australia T3 or T4 with Japan (even with 6 fighters and really threatining and holding back the US/UK Navy).  That being said in the 3 games I played, I have been able to really try Japan up in spectacular fashion, but it becomes irrelevant as it still swells up into the great Satan somewhere between turn 6-9.  All the while the allies look like they do good on Germany, but not quite good enough to kill it by the time Japan turns into the unstopable juggernaut.  It is starting to look like the Allies can not afford to give Japan this much attention, though I am still curious about this IC and more importantly the moves done w/o the IC to tie up Japan.  Also I am starting to wonder, why not just use America and have Australia as “home base” for them, the Brits could build an IC late in the game if the opportunity presents itself.  This is only 3 games though.  It is almost as if the axis recoverd 3 times from the brink of disaster and still win.

We are talking about the lovable india’s ipc!

The italians may take gibraltar = no bombing p:

Also i don’t see many games doing that!