Rockets have a firing range of 3 or 4?

in my groups we value consistency, if the battle is rolled wrong, then it is rerolled, no matter what the result was.

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

The KGF strat is not about ignoring Japan, no countries can be ignored, it’s just that allies cant do much against Japan for the first 2 rnds, and Japan can be partially ignored early in the game. The KGF strat involves slowing Japan down as much as possible, but most resources goes against Germany.
The reason why KGF is most popular among the best players is because a good axis player will make a too strong Germany if only Russia and UK tries to stop them.

And there is no such thing as KGF fanmania, it’s about the-most-effective-strat-fanmania :)

There is not really a KGF for many (99%) Revised games. A true KGF will include some US naval units to Pacific to distract Japan and force fight it … I only had seen a true KGF once in my PBEM games and it was in AA50. 99% of players do a Try Ignore Japan strat that includes sending all stuff to Europe and Africa, even the starting Pacific fleets. Most (99%) of players will counter this making a JTDTM, while some others will counter with a Polar Expres, that’s why I call the “so-called KGF” a “Try Ignore Japan (if you can)”
Allies can do a Ignore Japan strat only if Japan lets them. In my games I noticed that Polar Express is, at least, as good as JTDTM, and I’m pretty sure that Polar Express can improve because it has been used less (many play by memory with TIJ-KGF)

The funny thing is when in some games Japan gets diced J1 and anyway allied player lets Japan breath and TIJ just because they think that a Pacific Fleet is useless

My point is that in this or any future A&A games many players will never stop from trying ignore Japan, no wonder how bad idea is, how many income have Pacific Ocean and mainland Asia, how bad gets Japan diced, how good can be Polar Express or how boring can be ignoring Japan. KGF is a religion

If they try that in Global 1940, Japan will destroy everyone with its 2 BB, 3 CV, and lots of transports/income.

Another thought would be about which is going to be easier to replace for you country.  Subs are great fodder and replacing them is easier on the pocketbook than FIG’s or CV’s, and especially if you are Japan.  US can afford to usually replace that kind of loss, but most other countries can’t.

For 72 IPC’s, I’d go with a mix like ones mentioned earlier, with DD’s, CV’s (+FIG) & SS’s.  If split over a couple rounds, maybe SS/DD first in case of early strike

:-D
In the movie; Battle of the Bulge, there is a scene where the german generals are discussing this story about the chocolate cake, still very fresh, ( I think they may have actually eaten it) and saying if the Americans have ample resources to spend on shipping cake to their soldiers then we are lost. Something to that effect anyway.
Another story, off topic, sorta, is that some bomber crews were talking about all the different kinds of ordanance that we were dropping on germany, and one crewman said, “We’ve dropped everything but the kitchen sink!” So on the next mission, you guessed it, they brought along a kitchen sink and threw it out one of the side gun windows during Bombs Away! :roll:

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

There’s a factor no-one considered though. When 3 people play, we usually set it up with 1 axis vs. 2 allies, with each allied player picking a country, and sharing the third. That way coordination is forced, and most importantly: everyone gets 2 turns a round, instead of one player getting three and the other two getting one each.

Ive done some calulations for DAAKs low luck rules for this tech to Germany…
My basic idea was to research the tech fairly quick, but more dice gets expensive with the DAAK Rules so Ive puzzled a bit with buying two dice per turn which will be an avarage cost while you get the tech fairly quick. This will cost 33 IPC over the course of the first three turns and then the tech will come in with a 100% chance in GER#3 and you can start using them by GER#4
Now you can take 3-4 IPC away from both moscow and London and 2-4 away from caucasus (the damage is based on DAAKs rules regarding SBR damage compared to IPC value of countries)
This is an average damage of 10 IPC per turn (3,5 + 3,5 + 3)… Profit for germany on turn 8, but at the cost of 11 infantry who could be used to on the eastern front to trade territorries with the russians. Im affraid that putting this kind of money in this tech would also mean that it will take much longer to conquer Caucasuses.

I don’t think its worht it.
-Daniel

No on all counts.

Here are the reasons:

#1:  Rockets originate from AA guns.  AA guns can ONLY move in non-combat.
#2:  Non-Combat Movement rules specify that any land unit moved/engaged in combat may NOT move in non-combat.
#3:  The “Rocket” could only be moved toward Russia in non-combat, which is AFTER the phase in which Rockets fire, so you cannot move then fire.
#4:  Any units on a Transport are considered Cargo.  They cannot attack or defend while on a transport, and they die if the transport dies.