If the rule is set up as suggested in the first post, then I think I’d hesitate to buy tech. I’ll wait for somebody else to make all the sacrifice.
Latest posts made by johnmk
-
RE: Tech Idea
-
RE: Is There a KJF Strategy in AA41?
I don’t see how KGF can work in AA50.
Don’t you mean that you can’t see how KJF can work in AA50?
-
RE: Is There a KJF Strategy in AA41?
My impression is that Kill Japan First is not efficient compared to Kill Germany First. A strong Japan, in the medium-term, is simply the cost of doing business when it comes to defeating the Axis in the long-term. It’s an atypical situation that would pragmatically call for Kill Japan First.
Part of the reason is the unit setup at the start of the game. America can more cheaply and more quickly start pumping units into Europe and Africa than it can into Asia, since in the Atlantic, she’s unlikely to find significant opposition beyond the first turn or two. The extra turns and cost involved in building up a force that can take on the Japanese navy and air force (with some prospect of coming out on top) is a cost not required to take on the Germans and Italians, who have the further handicap of split navies instead of the united Imperial Japanese Navy. Japan might end up with Asia, while you hope to end up with Germany and Italy. Another factor here is the distance involved. America traveling to Asia takes twice as long as traveling to Africa and Europe.
It’s unfortunate that a more balanced approach isn’t practical. It sure would be fun to see significant U.S./Japanese interaction all throughout the game.
-
RE: ALL SUBS FOR USA??
Swiss’s reply was just fine. No need to take his advice personally.
-
RE: ALL SUBS FOR USA??
yes of course, I do this all the time
What is it that you do all the time, precisely? All subs for USA, all the time? Surely you do something a little less extreme. :)
-
RE: ALL TANKS EVERY PURCHASE FOR GERMANY
I think mostly infantry + 1 art on G1, and then armor on G2, would be more practical and cover more eventualities.
-
RE: China Free Mod version 0.2
How about a new National Objective for the US such as this:
-
Reduce IPC in the U.S. by some value so the below national objective doesn’t change things radically.
-
+5 IPC to the U.S. if no Axis units are present in sea zones adjoining North America. Those are sea zones 20, 55, 56, 65, 64, 19, 10, 9, 1.
Heck, maybe it should be +10. Or two +5 National Objectives, one covering Western North America, and the other – Eastern, with corresponding reductions to North American IPC so that on average the change in US IPC income isn’t radically different, but gives the Axis a way to annoy the U.S., while giving the U.S. a way to respond. The KISS principle would seem to imply one National Objective should be enough to cover this. Also, since the U.S. already has four National Objectives, I propose we drop one. The first one, which gives +5 IPC if the U.S. has all three U.S. mainland territories, seems rather useless in most games. I say get rid of it, incorporate that +5 IPC into the three U.S. mainland territories (+2/+2/+1) and let’s give the Axis a realistic prospect for hurting the Allies by attacking their supply lines. Japan would be the most realistic prospect for sustaining such a campaign, in most games, probably with the occasional submarine or destroyer, thus suggesting a U.S. response.
-