@M36 Mostly agree, yeah. AldoRaine is right that Italy only gets one turn (Italy 1) to safely unload troops near Egypt before it needs to return to fighter cover near Rome…but that one turn might be all you need if UK is building nothing at all in South Africa / Egypt on UK1 and also evacuating the entire UK Med navy to send it west. You often want to come back to Rome anyhow on Italy 2 so you can reload with fresh infantry – and then you can send one or both of the transports to Egypt, naked, on Italy 3 if you need it to finish Egypt off. You could buy a replacement transport if you like – that way you could start Italy 4 with warships, a transport, Egypt, and some cash. Not too shabby.
Best posts made by Argothair
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
-
RE: G1 Egypt Attack
@leebear I would suggest that if the extra British ships aren’t making a difference then the British player isn’t using them well. If you send the German bomber to Egypt then Britain either keeps both Atlantic transports, or Britain keeps the destroyer and cruiser near Gibraltar.
With two transports, it is nearly impossible for Germany to protect France; Britain can attack turn 1 with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, and 1 BB bombard. To protect against that you would have to leave almost the entire German starting army in France, meaning that your front against Russia is in danger of collapse from a Russian counterattack; you can lose your tanks or lose control of the NO for Baltics, East Poland, and Ukraine. If you don’t protect against it, then Britain gets $6 for France plus $5 for the NO, plus the US gets $5, and you can’t land planes there on G2. This sets up a cycle where Brian has enough cash to keep retaking France each turn, which is at least as valuable as the Italian NOs. You can somewhat prevent these problems by having Italy retake France, but that means keeping the Italian forces back from the eastern front, and buying mostly army rather than navy for Italy, which kind of defeats the point of having a strong Italy – you can still lose the Italian fleet in the middlegame.
On the other hand, if you leave Britain with the destroyer and cruiser off Gibraltar and the Egyptian fighter survives, then Brian can attack the Italian fleet immediately on turn 1 with 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber; before Italy has a chance to build a carrier. Britain is mildly favored to win that battle. If you play with any kind of bid, Britain can add a sub to that fleet and become strongly favored to win that battle.
None of this is to say that you shouldn’t attack Egypt on G1…it’s fine if that’s where you like to focus the Axis energy. It’s just that you’re not getting a free lunch, because leaving more than the bare minimum of British ships alive ought to give the Allies plenty of counterbalancing advantages.
-
RE: Weddingsinger (Axis) vs Argothair (Allies) G40 BM, low luck
You know what, it’s a bloody playtest! I ran two G1’s, one with max scramble and one with no scramble. Pick your favorite, and let’s continue from there. :-)
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
You don’t have to take the Pearl out, @crockett36 – I’m not saying your Axis opening is bad; I’m just saying it’s different from what I’m used to. As you suspect, the TUV for the Allies on the pair of attacks is negative, even including the DD in Hawaii that you can kill for free, but it’s not badly negative, and for some of the reasons @weddingsinger points out, I think losing all that material so early in the game tends to weaken Japan’s momentum enough that it’s worthwhile for the Allies to take the economic loss of 20 IPCs or so in TUV.
If you send the transport to take Wake, then I would not make the attacks – but that means you’re either sending only 1 transport to the Philippines (you could get diced and lose that battle) or you’re skipping the attack on Borneo (India gets rich), and either way, you don’t have a third transport in Indonesia to finish hoovering up the money islands, so that puts you down 9 IPCs on J2 and possibly also on J3.
Anyway, I think your overall plan of attack for the Axis is just fine. I wasn’t trying to criticize your decision, just pointing out what I saw as the pros and cons of a strategy that was different than what I’m used to. :)
-
RE: 1941 tournament scenario
@thedesertfox I don’t think you’ll get people to agree on a bid, which is why you should have an auction if you’re running a tournament – let one player say "I’ll take the Allies for 10 ipcs (or whatever), and then the other player can either say “Ok, take them” or bid lower and say “I’ll take the Allies for 9 ipcs.” This continues until someone says ok.
There are just so few games in a typical a&a tournament that you can’t afford to have anyone feeling like they lost a coin toss. E.g. if you have 3 rounds and someone plays allies twice and they don’t agree with your fixed bid, that’s a real feel-bad moment.
-
How Can We Incentivize the US to Split its Effort Between Atlantic and Pacific?
In Revised, Anniversary Edition, and 1942 Second Edition, by far the most popular and successful strategy is for all of the Allied powers to concentrate their forces in the Atlantic/European theater. By far the second most popular and successful strategy is for all of the Allied powers to concentrate their forces in the Pacific/Japanese theater. Almost nobody recommends splitting the American forces 50/50 or 60/40 or even 70/30 between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.
People seem to agree that if you concentrate the Allied forces in one theater, you can seize an enemy capital and knock that enemy out of the war, whereas if you fail to concentrate the Allied forces in one theater, you won’t make progress quickly enough to stop Germany and Japan from uniting their forces against Russia, seizing Moscow and knocking Russia out of the war.
That all makes plenty of sense as far as it goes – I’m sure there’s something in Sun Tsu’s The Art of War about concentrating your forces and striking where your enemy is weakest, and so if we keep issuing rule sets that allow players to concentrate forces from all over the globe against a single ultra-important enemy capital, then the smart players will do exactly that.
But if you ask me, this business of concentrating your whole global army against a single enemy capital winds up wasting a major opportunity for fun. It’s fun when the US Pacific Fleet faces off against the Imperial Japanese fleet and they’re equally matched and it’s not clear who’s going to win control of the Pacific, and a brilliant tactic or a series of lucky rolls could help you build momentum and expand your borders. It’s fun when the US/UK invasion force squares off against the German Atlantic Wall, and they’re equally matched, and it’s not clear whether the Anglos will establish a beachhead in France, or whether they’ll get pushed back out to sea. It’s fun when the Germans divert every unit they can spare to defend the western beaches, leaving them equally matched with the Russians on the eastern front, and it’s not clear whether the Germans will break out at Stalingrad or Kursk and start pillaging the Russian heartland, or whether the Russians will break the German tank corps and start inexorably pushing the Germans backward.
It’s not fun when everyone at the table knows the Allies will win in the Atlantic and the Japanese will win in the Pacific, and the only question is who wins first. It’s not fun when you sit around counting out whether you’re three turns from the capital or four turns from the capital, and the game turns on whether or not your opponent can put a lone destroyer in your way to slow your fleet of 15 ships down by one crucial turn, so that instead of you sacking your opponent’s capital and using the proceeds to drop a stack of fighters to defend your capital, your opponent sacks your capital and uses the proceeds to drop a stack of fighters in his capital. In other words, winning the game should mostly be a matter of outfighting your opponent, not a matter of outracing your opponent. Yes, speed can and should matter in a wargame, but it shouldn’t be the only salient factor.
So here’s my question: what kind of house rule(s) would we need to encourage players to split their forces more or less evenly between the Atlantic and the Pacific? What’s the smallest set of changes we could make to the game that would make it an optimal strategy to split your forces, and make it a risky, unusual strategy to concentrate all your forces in one theater?
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
I’ve never understood why anyone would be even slightly interested in taking Iraq on turn 1 – it’s literally impossible for the Axis to activate it before UK2, you can take Persia from the same sea zone, Persia is worth the same amount to your economy, and Persia comes with 2 free troops instead of opposing you with 3 enemy troops.
Even if you have nothing better to do with your bombards and air power on UK1 (which is almost never the case), you should still prefer Persia to Iraq because Persia strengthens your forces and Iraq weakens your forces.
-
RE: India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?
@taamvan I think this says more about the weakness of the tournament design than about the game as a whole. How can you be expected to generate interesting results after only five turns of play? Anything even slightly non-obvious will require longer than that to wear down your opponent’s starting forces in a region. It takes four turns just to travel to some parts of the map from your starting factories – so if you build units in New York on turn 1, they just barely reach Leningrad or Stalingrad on the last turn of the game, even with no opposition. Or if you buy units in Tokyo on turn 1, they just barely reach Rome on the last turn. It’s just not enough time.
-
RE: [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion
Well, I think your comment about “unfun” gets at the heart of the matter. Every new rule has to balance simplicity, fairness, excitement, and accuracy. An otherwise exciting rule that’s too complex to easily remember or that’s too fiddly to easily apply is probably not going to enhance the average player’s experience.
Keeping in mind that your new ruleset functions by adding several new unit types (and mechanics) to the game without removing much from the game, you may already be at or near the limit of how much complexity you can include in a house rule and still have it be fun. My advice would be to ruthlessly streamline your pricing scheme so as to minimize any further complexity, even if that means losing a bit of accuracy or excitement.
In other words, pick one pricing system and stick with it. A flat fee, or a flat fee plus a per unit premium, or a flat fee plus a one-time conversion fee…and apply that scheme for every single one of your technologies on every turn of the game.
That’s just my two cents. Ultimately, it’s your rule!
-
RE: We need an allied playbook.
@simon33 I think maybe your preferences are so different from mine on this one that we’re having trouble communicating.
Sure, literally, it is possible for the Allies to make it impossible for Japan to take Yunnan J2 after a normal J1 opening, regardless of whether you hold an Japanese infantry back in Kiangsi. In practice, I think Allied players would very rarely want to fly the entire Russian air force to Yunnan, because holding Yunnan is worth 4 to 7 IPCs of income (depending on whether you’re playing Balanced Mod) and the ability to purchase 3 artillery instead of 4 infantry (useful, but not utterly game-changing; the entire Chinese stack shifts from an attack of about 12 punch to 17 punch, and it is slightly worse at defending).
If you stack Yunnan with literally everything that can reach as the Allies, that exposes you to strategic bombing in Russian factories on G3 and in India on J2, it makes your R3 trades much weaker and might even allow the Germans to stack one space deeper into Eastern Europe, and it makes a Japanese harbor purchase in Formosa on J2 stronger because there are no longer enough units defending India and Burma. In my opinion, these disadvantages outweigh the extra Chinese income and the extra Chinese punch.
I hear you saying that you’re somewhat interested in the question of whether to attack Yunnan with 3 land units or 4 land units on J1, but that you are pretty sure it’s wiser to attack with 4 land units when declaring J1 because without your bombers, 3 land units doesn’t give you a strong enough attack. That’s fine. I mostly agree with you about that specific point, especially if you’re insisting on taking Yunnan, rather than just clearing it.
What I’m interested in is whether it makes sense to try to capture Yunnan at all on J1 during a J1 DoW. I go back and forth on that question. I like attacking with 3 land units and 2 planes and then retreating when you are down to 1 infantry or so – you might get lucky and capture the territory, and on average you will kill more infantry than you lose. Together with a small attack on Hunan, you can bleed the Chinese pretty dry on J1 and keep Kwangsi safe for a while.
It may seem clear to you that a full J1 attack on Yunnan is obviously a good idea, but it’s not clear to me. If you want to explain more about why you’re so passionate about capturing Yunnan on J1, I’m genuinely interested to hear more about your opinions, but just declaring that “it’s one of the least close calls in the game” isn’t helpful to me.
-
RE: Is it idiotic for UK not to attack France?
That seems kind of boring, axis_roll. I mean, I love the look and feel of Anniversary Edition, but what’s the point of the extra territories and extra rules if the game still winds up as a traditional tug-of-war where the whole game boils down to whether Germany can dump infantry into France (or Italy) faster than the USA and UK can stockpile infantry in London (or Algeria)? Why not just play Revised?
I got so mad about this that I drafted an alternate set of National Objectives for the 1941 scenario – I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.
SOVIET UNION
Murmansk Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Norway, Finland, Karelia, and Archangel if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 3 and 4.
Persian Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 34.
Vladivostok Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Buryatia SSR, Stanovoj Chebet, and Soviet Far East if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 63.UNITED KINGDOM
Defense of the Commonwealth: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of W. Canada, E. Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
Mediterranean Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Gibraltar, Egypt, and Trans-Jordan if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.
China-Burma-India Campaign: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of India, Burma, French Indo-China Thailand, Kwangtung, and the East Indies.UNITED STATES
Monroe Doctrine: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Alaska, Hawaii, W. Canada, E. Canada, Mexico, Western US, Central US, Eastern US, West Indies, Panama, and Brazil.
Pacific Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of Philippines or Manchuria
European Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of France, Italy, or Balkans
South Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Hawaii, Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Caroline Islands.GERMANY
Atlantik Wall: 5 IPCs if Germany has at least one land unit in each of Norway, Northwestern Europe, and France.
Lebensraum: 5 IPCs if Germany controls three or more of Poland, East Poland, Ukraine, and East Ukraine.
Mideast Oil: 5 IPCs if Germany controls two or more of Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR.ITALY
New Roman Empire: 5 IPCs for Italian control of three or more of Balkans, Libya, Egypt, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Italian East Africa, and Rhodesia
Mare Nostrum: 5 IPCs if Axis control Gibraltar and France, and there are no Allied ships in sea zones 13, 14, and 15.JAPAN
Barrier Islands: 5 IPCs for Axis control of three or more of Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake Island, and Okinawa.
Strategic Resources: 5 IPCs for Axis control of Borneo and Kiangsu if there are no Allied ships in sea zones 49, 50, 61, and 62.
East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 5 IPCs for Japanese control of India, Australia, or HawaiiCHINA
Over the Hump: If the Allies have at least one fighter or bomber in India, then you may place one Chinese artillery unit in Chinghai or Sikang or Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements. You cannot place the artillery in a territory China does not control.
Burma Road: If the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan, you may place one additional Chinese infantry in Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements. -
[AE50] Training Scenarios
Have you ever wanted a training scenario for Axis & Allies? Something that can help newcomers decide if the game is right for them, or a way to break in new players who need some practice, or something to use to teach your kids how to play one step at at time? Hasbro publishes the “1941” box, but in my opinion the production quality is kind of cheap, and it’s still not really fast enough for a proper training scenario – you don’t want to play a 2.5 hour game; you want to play a 30 minute exercise that could serve as a warm-up or a test run for friends to check out after a weeknight dinner.
So, I designed a couple of scenarios for just that purpose.
The rules for both scenarios are:
-
1 player vs. 1 player
-
Each player gets 3 full turns
-
Each player has only 1 nation
-
Only limited territories are in play
-
No capitals present or necessary
-
Each player starts with IPCs in hand based on territories controlled at start
-
Whoever controls more IPCs on the map at the end of the third turn wins
The basic scenario, on the European side of the 50th Anniversary map, also has the further rule that the only units allowed are infantry, artillery, tanks, and fighters. The idea is that you can play the European scenario first to learn the basics of land warfare, and then if you want more practice you can play the Pacific scenario to learn how to use your boats. All unit types are allowed in the Pacific scenario.
European Scenario (Germany goes first with 7 IPCs, then Russia with 8 IPCs)
HUNGARY: 1 factory, 1 infantry, 1 tank
ROMANIA: 1 factory, 1 infantry, 1 fighter
POLAND: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fightervs.
EAST POLAND: 3 infantry
UKRAINE: 1 infantry, 1 tank
EAST UKRAINE: 1 infantry
CAUCASUS: 1 factory, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighterPacific Scenario (Japan goes first with 10 IPCs, then Britain with 14 IPCs)
JAPAN: 1 factory, 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter
SZ 62: 1 transport, 1 cruiser, 1 carrier, 1 fighter
IWO JIMA: 1 infantry
SZ 59: 1 submarine
FORMOSA: 1 infantry
OKINAWA: 1 infantry
WAKE ISLAND: 1 infantry
CAROLINE ISLANDS: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
SZ 51: 1 submarinevs.
AUSTRALIA: 1 factory, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 bomber, 1 AAA gun
NEW ZEALAND: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
SOLOMON ISLANDS: 1 infantry
SZ 46: 1 transport, 1 battleship
NEW GUINEA: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
EAST INDIES: control marker
BORNEO: control marker
SZ 49: 1 destroyer
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: 2 infantryPlayers may use any sea zones they wish, but no other land territories other than the ones named above are considered to exist. For example, you cannot conquer or land on Hawaii or French Indochina.
As in the real game, the Axis start with slightly more total unit value, but less income, so they will have to rapidly conquer some territory (and briefly hold it) in order to win. But, really, winning isn’t the point – the point is to help bring up a new generation of Axis & Allies players. That’s the real victory.
All comments welcome!
-
-
RE: What are the pros and cons of no DOW on US by Japan
If you do like @weddingsinger and DoW early but fight conservatively, saving your planes and focusing on the money islands / SZ 6 rather than India, how do you respond to a UK buildup in the Middle East? It seems to me that a pair of factories in Iraq and Persia cranking out a balanced mix of units can restore India’s offensive threat even if Japan owns Malaya and Borneo.
Also, does anyone want to be more specific about how they knock out those last 6 to 9 IPCs of the UK Pac economy? Maybe I’ve just had terrible luck, but I can’t seem to bomb India without losing a bomber to AAA fire and/or interceptors, and you only start with 2 subs, one of which sometimes dies fighting over the money islands / Philippines, and one of which can be sunk by the starting UK Pac destroyer. By J2 I have some spare income to buy a sub, usually, but that sub won’t make it to the West Indian Ocean until J5 or so…by which time the UK can often build another destroyer in Egypt, South Africa, or Persia.
-
RE: Deck building area control WWII game?
I’ve made a deckbuilding game with a friend that’s set during the American Civil War where you play cards from your deck to move different types of army units around the map, but it’s pretty specific to the Civil War – I don’t think it would port well to WW2.
You might try Quartermaster General; it’s a bit lighter than A&A, but it’s a game about making very efficient use of each card in a relatively small deck to win World War 2 by moving armies around a map.
-
RE: Mechanized Russia
@weddingsinger Agree; I won an in-person game recently after buying 9 mechs on R1 and 8 mechs / 1 tank on R2 against a German Sea Lion. The Germans took London, along with heavier-than-expected casualties, on G3, but the Germans never pushed the Soviets out of Romania and the Russians wound up out-earning the Germans (trading 4+ of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Finland each turn) by about R5. The Axis scooped when they saw that the US didn’t even need to liberate London; Russia could hold Germany off all on its own while the Western Allies contained and rolled back Japan.
Granted, this involved some luck on the defending dice for London (Germany should have had additional air force survivors) and some sub-optimal positioning for German defenders (with a bit more advance planning, Germany probably could have held more of Eastern Europe), but it still felt like a board where you definitely wanted to be playing the Allies.
I would say that mechanized Russia makes a much weaker defense of London possible. I bought 2 inf, 1 ftr for London while sending away 2 infantry to Gibraltar and sending the entire British starting air force to either Taranto or to pick off a sub off the coast of Canada (meaning that the fighter had to land in Canada and couldn’t return in time to defend against a G3 Sea Lion). I think that was slightly too weak; if I had that game to do over I would have bought 3 inf, 1 ftr for London and perhaps not sent the fighter to Canada (sending only a DD instead) to kill the German sub…but the fact that my pathetic defense worked anyway was a sign of just how powerful MechaRussia is against Sea Lion.
-
RE: [AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!
@vodot Yeah, zeroing out Siberia is another one of those hard design choices that you have to make at this level of complexity. On the one hand, it’s cold and snowy and thinly populated and you want the map to reflect that in a way that’s clear to new wargamers. It’s no good having Yakutsk generate more income then, e.g., Yugoslavia.
On the other hand, the Soviets did relocate most of their industry to the Urals as the war went on, and much of that industry was fueled by mines and workshops in Siberia. They didn’t put all their millions of prisoners in the gulag just to be cruel; they were also mostly doing work vital to the war effort, I believe.
If you squint you can say that Moscow + Urals + Kazakhstan together cover the cities like Kuibyshev and Perm and Chelyabinsk where all that Ural manufacturing was taking place, but it seems to me that at least some of that industry was really in the Siberian part of the AA50 map. Perhaps more to the point, if the Axis conquer Moscow and Stalingrad then there is really nothing important left in the Soviet income, which is very ahistorical. In real life something like 40% of Soviet economy was in Moscow/Stalingrad and points west, but on the AA50 map it’s closer to 80%. Zeroing out Siberia would make that even worse.
-
RE: Balanced Mod [Anniversary 41]
@SS-GEN That’s very relevant commentary, and I’m interested, so, thank you, SS Gen.
I agree that many A&A games have an issue where Japan becomes a monster if ignored by the US – some might see that as a problem, and some might see that as a feature – maybe the USA should have to pay at least some attention to Japan to keep them contained.
What bugs me about Anniversary 1941 is that, at least in my experience, even if the USA focuses 100% on containing Japan, sometimes Japan still grows big enough to be a huge problem for the Allies. For the most part I like Anniversary better than Global, but one thing I think Global gets right is that the USA, at war, is cranking out 80+ IPCs a turn even before they have any major conquests, whereas Japan, even after grabbing the valuable territories in their immediate neighborhood, is still only making 50 IPCs per turn – so if the USA focuses entirely on Japan early in the game, then the USA will still have the stronger economy and will be able to reliably beat Japan down – the only question is whether that beatdown will happen fast enough for Moscow and/or Cairo to hold against Germany and Italy. By contrast, in Anniversary, Japan can singlehandedly outearn the entire American economy, even when America is spending 100% on the Pacific…and because (with no bid) there aren’t any suitable territories for an Allied factory in the Pacific, America is the only Ally that will be spending any money in the Pacific, so Japan can still dominate even when all the Allies go 100% KJF. That’s crazy. I didn’t believe it at first, but @axis_roll pounded me into the dirt repeatedly in the process of showing me how and why it’s true, and now I’m a convert. So that’s the problem I’m trying to solve; I’d like to see an Allied Pacific force that’s capable of meaningful resistance to the Japanese expansion.
I completely agree with your criticism about Japanese tanks in, say, Axis & Allies 1942 Second Edition, or Axis & Allies Revised, or, even, to a lesser extent, in Axis & Allies Global 1940. Japanese tanks blitzing through the Gobi Desert, the Himalayas, or the frozen swamps of Siberia should not really be a major theme of this game. Japan did not have and could not have built a logistical infrastructure capable of delivering spare parts, fuel, and ammo for tanks over 2,000+ miles of hostile, snowy, mountainous terrain.
That said, I’ve never noticed Japanese tanks in Anniversary to be a major problem; my Japanese opponents typically use transports to conquer coastal Allied territories, as well they should. If you or anyone else is having trouble with Japanese tanks in Anniversary, I suppose it’s perfectly reasonable to nerf the Japanese tanks down to A2 D2 M2 C5 – they were, after all, mostly light tanks and somewhat outdated relative to other superpowers’ models. You could also just have a house rule that there’s no blitzing (for anyone) in western China or central Siberia.
-
RE: UK as one economy
Maybe Canada would be more interesting with the option to provide lend-lease! It gives them a reason to maintain a navy beyond just chasing German subs for the heck of it.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33666/supply-token-for-lend-lease
-
RE: [AA50] Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!
@vodot Gorgeous! I love the way the Aleutians bridge the two sea zones and have a land connection to Alaska. Really gives the Japanese a reason to play in the north Pacific – not only can you now realistically capture a total of 3 IPCs, but the Aleutian landing zone poses a danger that fighters built in Tokyo can land on carriers, while fighters taking off from carriers can land in the Aleutians – in other words, if America loses the Aleutians, they might also lose control of the San Diego sea zone. Chef’s kiss