“The US fleet must be strong enough” that is exactly what I’m saying. If the US has to build extra warships than it will greatly decrease the strength of their assaulting force. This can force the allies to wait a turn in order to get more troops to the beaches that are their targets thus giving more time to the axis to control and hold their 8 Victory cities.

I was talking about OOB too. I also agree that a fake sea-lion is great, what i’m saying is that the attack on england is not worth it. The extra turns it takes to achieve victory over the British Isles the Russians will have a great enough force to repel the germans for a very long string of rounds. This allows even a half competent America player to become and overwhelming force. The loot gained from England would also be useless. Say you take england on a completely optimal third turn. And have forces that are waiting to invade russia turn 4. This gives America 3 turns at the least (moscow being two blitzes away from The german boarder. In three turns the Americans can have cairo, and have forces in Stalingrad. Now this situation may be an even show of force, But these assumptions are based on the fact that russia is completely empty. on a normal turn of events the Americans and Russians can completely control russian territory and begin to move into german occupied territory around turn 6-7. The fake sea-lion however ruins the English offensive power, as well as giving an amphibious assault on leningrad. Such an assault would cripple the russians forces and give the Germans a great opportunity to attack russia’s jugular: Moscow. This also splits their forces in two.

Just played a game of Global A&A today. I played Japan and Italy, and a friend of mine played germany. I (being used to europe 1940 A&A) said sea lion is a money trap. Now in my opinion sea-lion is twice as effective as a Russian attack, this is because it can eliminate a major allied power very soon in the game. On the other hand if Russia is invaded, than it can offer two quick VCs to the axis cause where a sea-lion would only offer one. So my opinion is split. The one thing I can agree with is that Sea-lion is very viable plan to destroy the allies unlike the lack of time in Europe because of the undivided american attention.

Nine transports is a huge waste of IPC in the russian theatre, if you going to attack russia i would rather just split the IPC between Tanks and Mech. Infantry. The only reason I would ever do this, would be too for-stall russia and ready troops and next turn come back and the fallowing turn drop on England with favorable odds based on the units one would buy in those turns. This also only applies to a Global game of Axis an Allies…

What about Oran? The french said they wouldn’t fight with the british because they sent a low ranking officer to meet them, instead they sat in the port and waited for the Nazis. The British than destroyed the French fleet and went home.

that actually sounds like a great idea, more historical. In real life the english seized all french ships at The English Isles and Cairo. Than they sent a battle fleet to oran to give the french the options to fight with them, sail to America and disband, or be destroyed. They chose to be destroyed obviously but that does sound like a very realistic rule.

But the English did destroy the bulk at Oran because the English admiral did not send a high ranking officer to talk too the French admiral and so the french would not go out and fight with the English… they decided to sit in the harbor and wait for the axis powers to come.

What did the French contribute? Other than allowing the English to sink their warships at oran i cant think of much. The french did more harm to the allies than to the axis because of their willingness to give their ships over to the nazis because of mere pride.

“The US fleet must be strong enough” that is exactly what I’m saying. If the US has to build extra warships than it will greatly decrease the strength of their assaulting force. This can force the allies to wait a turn in order to get more troops to the beaches that are their targets thus giving more time to the axis to control and hold their 8 Victory cities.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the Russian hegemony. :P

You bring up valid points, but I hate the fact of giving up a major city, even if it is one that is out of the way. By the way FIRST GLOBAL GAME TONIGHT!!!

How many cities must one get in Global?