Best Feeling in Round 1

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?

It is not really an issue since Russia can land up to 2 ftrs on London before G goes.
Any Allied player that sees a bid of 1 trn to sz 5 and does not land at least 1 Russian ftr on London is asking to get diced by Germany.

London should have at least:  2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm, 3 ftrs, 1 bom
(bom can even be taken in the first wave of casualties)

With no aa hits for Ger, UK wins about 80% here.

With 4 ftrs, it is up to about 95%.

@ncscswitch:

You would not have the income to maximize productions at all 3 IC’s… EVER (unless the game was already over).

2 INF in Karelia for a cost of 21 IPC’s over 2 turns is not a good Russian buy… just buy 4 ARM in Moscow 1 turn, and send them to Karelia the next instead :-)

sending tanks into st. petsburg makes more sense but you only have to build in moscow when japan suddenly comes a tapping As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. for it is Only this, and nothing more.

In order to defeat a defending army worth ~150 IPC, you’d need to spend ~200 IPC.  I generally find this to be the case is for larger battles, say minimum of at least 10 defending units.  Of course it varies by players aggressiveness or risk factor or a couple of other things.

This is true b/c it is extremely easy to defend.  As you both point, Infantry are unmatched it that department.

So attackers need to outspend defenders ~4:3 in order to take.  You need more if it is a combined attack, for example a UK-US 1-2, or perhaps less depending on how much you want to take with, or if you have lots of air, tanks can really move 2 spaces, or something else.

I look at it as simply an easy guideline, like usind a LL method to see if I have “avg” shot at taking, not a hard hitting “must play by” rule.  I think of the same thing with the 3:1:1 army.  It’s a nice guideline but rarely do I ever actually have that in games.

As for my army for 150, I’d probably have something like:

26 inf
8 rt
8 arm

Units:  42
Att:  74
Def:  92

Or

23 inf
9 rt
9 arm

Units:  41
Att:  77
Def:  91

@Jennifer:

@Infantry:

Now that you can target tech rolls IT would distort the game. Too much would rely on whether Germany or Russia got IT first.

Well, if they had left it in and not altered Hvy Bombers except to limit then to best of 3 dice on SBR runs, it would have evened out.

I think the reference was to the tech that allowed you to save 1 IPC per unit.

Spend 20 IPC on tech, get a slightly better than 50% chance.

Now you need to buy 20 units to make that back.  20 infantry now cost you 40 IPC.

Simple.

Except that you are forgetting that Japan will have around $40 IPC aimed at Russia also while the UK and US safely bomb Germany and rely on Russia to fight the ground war.  Which would work… except for those 14 divisions per turn coming at Moscow from the east…

This poll and post is even more difficult to answer than the combat poll.  This one not only depends on prior combat, but also on the outcome of those combats.  Your planned NCM can be obsolete and/or foolhardy by the time it’s time to make it.

Like Switch says, the best laid plans last only until contact with the enemy. (paraphrased) :-D

It still falls by J4 latest.

The question is… if you delay Japan that long as UK, can US and USSR beat Germany back and pin them in that time…