ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC

If ANZAC can afford to pull this off, then this shows that Japan is not putting pressure on ANZAC like it should be. The issue with ANZAC is that it is forced to play a defensive role for someone. ANZAC can make some offensive moves in early game if Japan doesn’t J1 on US. It’s navy supports the US fleet, it’s air power is supporting UK or USSR, and it’s land forces are defending the homeland. If ANZAC is able to afford bombers and carriers, either the Allies are in a major win swing or Japan ain’t doing its job.

I think it is all about who has the ipcs to spare from existing factory builds. That may be ANZAC, Russia, UK or none of them. It depends on what is happening in each game.

The 3 unit max ANZAC build in Australia can be a constraint if meeting national objectives in the east Indies, in which case a second factory is an idea and options are limited. In such circumstances I have started building bombers, as J is likely to already be on the back foot at land and sea, but might look for a second factory option in future.

@CWO:

@kinglad:

would a fighter really sink a cruiser in real life

No.  The worst that a group of fighters – and especially a single fighter – could do to a WWII cruiser would be to shoot up the superstructure with its guns or cannons, thus killing men (including, potentially, the bridge crew) and damaging or destroying vulnerable equipment (like the radar gear).  Some fighters (or fighter bombers) carried small bomb loads or rockets, but these would not have sufficed to sink a cruiser.  To sink a battleship or cruiser, you basically have only two options: breach the hull in sufficent places to admit enough water to destroy its buoyancy, or penetrate the armour at the right place (and to a sufficient depth) to reach and detonate the ammunition magazines of one of the main gun turrets.  No fighter had the capability to do that with conventional weapons.  At most, a kamikaze attack by a fighter might cause serious damage and a bad fire – potentially lethal to a carrier under ideal circumstances, but probably not to a battleship or cruiser.

Basically, you summed up why the argument that transports should be defenseless because they’d never kill a sub is actually a pretty dumb argument. :-)

Yes, I’d let them remain Dutch too.  One of the points of this house rule idea is to give the Dutch their own units, to rectify their rather odd status of having their own map roundel but no actual combat forces – so if the Dutch units were converted into plain old UK or ANZAC units when one of those countries lands in the DEI, it would spoil the fun.  And from a historical point of view, it’s likewise accurate to keep them Dutch: the Dutch components of ABDACOM remained Dutch during the DEI campaign, even though they were part of a coalition.

I also agree that the Dutch infantry units should gallantly fight and die where they stand.  As Marshall Mac Mahon famously said at Sevastopol in 1855, “J’y suis, j’y reste!” – here I am and here I will stay.

@majikforce:

Wow I really like this idea.  My only concern would be that early on the US would probably be under time limit a lot (depending on when they are brought in to the war) Would that extra income swing things too much one way?  I don’t know but it sounds like a cool idea to explore.  I think we are gonna go straight time limits to start with and get feedback from everybody and then maybe experiment with the par idea.  Thanks for the ideas!

Rather than a one-size-fits-all model, you could set up tables that give different pars for different countries at different stages of the game.  In competition chess, I believe, players must make x number of moves per hour during the initial stages of the game, but are then given more time per move past a certain point.  The principle would be similar here, reflecting such factors as the wartime vs. peacetime status of some powers, the more marginal role in the game of some countries (like France and China), and Britain’s split global economy.

@13thguardsriflediv:

@The:

This rule is heavily one sided towards the allies.

Japan doesn’t want to attack Russia because of the 12 ipc given away which will help Germany and if Japan doesn’y attack Russia it means more units can be spent on the German front. I believe that for this to favour the axis Japan has to commit huge forces to the war against Russia leaving it open to attacks from the US and Uk i prefered the old rule

Finally a change by Larry tilted towards the allies. All I saw so far were extra planes for Germany, more land units for Japan, more fleet for Italy etc…

A good rule, because Germany shouldn’t be able to waltz into Moscow without serious effort with help from Italy). Some seem to want a game where Germany can boogie into London on turn 2 and then jive into Moscow on turn 5.

Germany should meet some resistance but I think the Ipc bonus should be smaller maybe 6 so it is 2 inf or 1 arm rather than 4 inf or 2 arm. Italy was also not needed for attacking Russia in the real war and Germany were eventually driven back. However Italy would need to give a few troops. It shouldn’t be major support but a few troops here and there. Italy was used for support along the med.

Thank you Calvin.

Thank you again.