Battleship: 2 hits in both offense and defense?

Island hopping is great, but its not critical.  Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great.  This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers.  They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults.  I will have no less than 2.  I then will support my fleet with destroyers.  I try to build 2 for every carrier.  If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment.  This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically.  Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower.  Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines.  If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics.  Your maximizing your money and strength.  Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry.  You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault.  the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition.  But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up.  Battle should be over without losing anything.  Your fighters land for fleet defense.  Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea.  Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.

Tim, pinch hitting for Krieghund quite well!

This really is wonderful!thanks a lot

Oob says that you roll a die, and that each bomber cannot do more ipc damage than production of territory. Maybe the explanation is confusing, but I would not say you must lose the max ipcs. I never played losing max ipcs in 2 years of face to face, and my mother language is spanish, so I suppose OOb are ok in that point. Anyway, a bit of logic says that even as confusing the sentence is, if you roll a die, that die must be used for determinig  the loss of ipc.

Oob rules, however, are wrong in rocket attacks, because they have a picture showing the Russia AA gun attacking Germany’s IC. This made me confusing until I read the FAQ, saying the picture was wrong. If I remember right, this is the only “big” mistake of rules.

@Nix:

But im all for the hit Japan first thing (not neccesarily killing him), but he can´t be let free to roam Asia/Africa/Australia-new zeeland…   it´s devestating for the allies, and more importantly the Russians.

If russia stacks Buryatia, puts 2 arm in yakut, UK kills the kwang trn (witch i failed to do twice in a row…), UK attacks FIC with 3 inf, 1 fig, lands fig in Sinkiang), Assembles UK Pacific fleet in SZ30.

USA can then choose how to do things, same for Russia and UK on turn 2.

Germany and Japan have allready shown their hand, and with 1 Trn Buryatia attack is risky, even if Pearl is ignored, if Fic was wiped, China will be harder, Sinkiang IC would look tempting.

If japan ignores pearl US have got a free carrier/sub/fig that can be nasty in the long run…

But my bottom line is Japan can´t be set loose unrestrained.

If anyone wants to monitor this in action see the league game between Nix and myself. ;)

In reality, did UK had naval industries in the north? If the answer is yes, it must be allowed. If no, it shouldn’t be allowed.

My fault for being lazy. Yes there were more Italian “conquests” during the war. But I thought it funny that the Italians took etheopia. And to give credit where credit is due. Some Italian units fought bravely in Africa. Not through (or for) thier own government, but by the example of Rommel. The man was an inspiration to them as well as the Germans who fought.

I used to play a comp game that illustrated the Italian military very correctly. I got the hugest kick out of building up thier tech and having them march into moscow. The friend I played was not as good as I was. The only thing better than beating him… was to have him be defeated by the Italians lol.

OK, the teams are: Everyone for themselves! Where should the UK put this free IC?