If you NoDOW, this usually means you are after Russia and defeat China and stall the US in the Pacific.
UK will likely grow strong and a Calcutta Crush (CC) is almost not doable.
This helps out Euro Axis alot.
If anything goes wrong with the german march on Moscow, you are screwed on both sides of the Map.
I tried it over and over with minimal success.
Now i prefer a solid J1 in BM and Vanilla since the impact on both Theaters are enormous.
The US has to choose a side and need to quickly balance out the whole board.
UK has all hands full as well.
A J1 is putting a lot of pressure to the Allies.
a CC is very likely
stabilize J’s income arround 70-80 ipc
creating many Threats at once by better pistioning your self in the Pacific.
-better odds on achivieving all 6 VC’s
I have searched for this on the forums and cannot find a reference to it. In the setup for Germany there are 2 pieces for aircraft carriers. I am axis and I started an Africa Korps movement but US entered the war in turn 1. Now I will need 2 carriers to guard the med in SZ 91 but I also want to place a carrier in SZ 113 to counter a possible Russian attack formulated by my cunning opponent. I can use a plastic chip in SZ 91. Is it permissible in the rules for Germany to have 3 carriers in play?
Why do you think that you need CV’s to protect the Med.?
I am curious, wouldn’t Bmbrs doing the same Job and give you more flexibility?
So now you spent 48 ipcs for three CV’s and 32 are lost compared to 48 = 4 Bmbrs plus your Ftr’s and the Allies player would have had to think about it sailing to Gibraltar…just my thoughts…
@genken Might be cool to have a house rule that 1) 1, 2 or 3 the ship is damaged in a way that it moves at half but attacks full or 2) 4, 5, or 6 it is damaged in a what that it moves 2 spaces but attacks with a hit on 1 or 2 vs 4 normally.
I’m still waiting for someone to give a plausible historical example of a power building units at a captured capital/factory/industrial centre in WWII.
Even “liberated” capitals are dubious; the example of France in 1944/5 shows that it was more economical to outfit new French units with American equipment than put French factories back into production.
In case Krieghund comes in on this, here’s a question - what happens if the attacker couldn’t retreat to a legal adjacent sea zone? That is, suppose UK built a cruiser and two transports in the sea zone between London and Paris on UK’s turn. Then suppose Germany moved some subs to that sea zone on Germany’s turn (but submerged), then UK picked up and dropped off from London to Paris. In that case, UK attacked, but didn’t move attacking units, so then the attacker couldn’t “retreat to an adjacent sea zone that one of the attackers had come from” because the attackers didn’t move at all. Would that mean UK could NOT retreat in such a case?
Yes, that’s what it means. However, in this case UK could simply ignore the subs and would have no reason to retreat.
In genken’s scenario, if the UK fleet could not retreat the battle would end once the attacker was reduced to only planes and the defender to only subs, and the transports would be automatically destroyed.