Winning in three turns is entirely possible. If one is lucky in the fight against the USSR (what makes a die ‘rational?’) you could take Moscow in three turns, but it has always seemed to me that Britain is the easier target.
Posts made by alaskansoviet
I have a stubborn, egotistical friend who usually plays Germany against me. When I attack one of his submarines he’ll say “My sub submerged!” and that it can’t be attacked. I don’t really understand the rules on submersion very much so I can’t really argue with him. Can I just have a layout of all the rules on submersion?
After an ally receives their income, can they give their IPC’s to the ally whose turn is next? I mean, once the USSR gets its money on the first turn, can it give it over to Britain so it has more to spend? This can go on and on, with America paying for Soviet troops and Britain giving America its income. It helps alittle, with the Allies making their finances so fluid, but now that I think about it, it doesn’t seem like it could be allowed by the rules. Anyone?
RE: The correct way to play the US
Given that it is possible for American troops to make landfall in Morocco in the first two turns, American can attack Italy and then Germany with a Southern D-Day. If Britain takes care of the northern German sea power, it can attempt to land in France while American takes over Italy. It’s just an idea, so if you don’t want to take a risk, I’d just go with America’s historic role: give money, planes, to Britain, land in France.
RE: Germany invading Britain strategies?
Invading Britain doesn’t seem like a very challenging concept at all. If one can quickly eliminate the British navy, you should be able to load and unload even just your starting troops until Britain is overwhelmed. Ocean control is the only thing that stands in the way of a Nazi Britain, or even a Nazi America. (Shivers)
RE: Which naval unit is most effective at maintaining convoys?
Thank you. It took me a while to understand your abbreviations, but your comments make sense.
Which naval unit is most effective at maintaining convoys?
What I mean by this is, after Britain and the US have eliminated the initial German submarine presence, what ships should they keep with the convoys to make sure they aren’t lost? This includes cost and all other factors.
RE: What about that unnamed red island in the Baltic Sea?
I realize that victorious ground troops are required for aircraft to land in enemy territory, but it just doesn’t make sense that you can’t land on unoccupied enemy territory. So let’s say I’m a German pilot. I see Iceland and no Allied troops are present, but since the island is claimed by the Allies, I can’t make a landing there and I run out of fuel and crash. It makes no sense at all…
RE: THe $12 you get to start with!!
Who cares about Malta?! I mean really…
Anyway, I always spend my starting 12 IPC’s as the USSR on infantry, placing them on the front line or the second line back if I will be tactically retreating.
Using the Soviet money for a fighter is much less cost effective for defense.
Buying artillery or armor may help with a counter attack, but it is also gets you less defense for your money.
If you know Germany won’t be pursuing the classic assault on Moscow, you might want a destroyer to protect your convoy or troops in the Caucasus to advance south and aid the Brits in N. Africa.