This is interesting, but I’d only think of trying it it if R1 went pretty badly, like if they lost in Ukraine. Otherwise, you will be too thin on the ground to stop the Russian advance.

Historically, I think it’s to signify Mongolian indifference to the Sino-Japanese war, and its animosity towards both countries (Japan attempted an invasion in 1939 I think, and were repelled with Soviet assistance, and the Mongols had been ruled by the Qing dynasty for so long, and their brethren in inner Mongolia were still being subjugated by the Chinese). For the strategic purposes of the game, Hobbes is correct, Mongolia serves to separate the northern and central routes of the Japanese advance on Moscow, same as what the Himalaya territory does in the south.

If I move a carrier into combat, could I also move a fighter 4 spaces to get to that combat zone, and have it land on the carrier after the battle? Or is that an illegal move?

Buy: 2 inf 2 art 2 tanks (more offense than any other possible land purchase)

Combat: 1. Ukraine with everyone who can reach (3 inf 1 art 1 tank from Cauc, 2 tanks from Russia, 2 ftrs).
2. West Russia with everyone else who can reach (except leave 1 inf in Karelia to stop German blitz), for a total of 8 inf 1 art 1 tank.

Non-combat: Evenk, Novo inf 2 Russia
Kaz inf to Cauc
Yakut, SFE inf to Buryatia (alternatively, you could move only the Yakut inf to Bury and keep 2 in SFE)
Z4 sub into Z2 to back up the British BB
Land both planes in Caucasus

Placement: 2 inf 2 art in Cauc, 2 tanks in Russia.

That is a solid foundation for Russia to begin the game. You will have to be aggressive in the south and passive up north for a while but when UK has enough for a big landing they will secure the northern corridor for you.

I don’t see how you can leave the West Russia AND Ukraine stacks alive and expect to not lose Caucasus.

A complex for Japan on one of its coastal Asian territories is an ok move, but I disprefer it because early on Japan can get troops to the front faster with transports. 2 trns cost one IPC less than an IC, and when the front consists of Manch, China and FIC, that’s the way to go. Once J captures India around mid-game, then it’s time to build a complex in India on the very next turn, because you can then drop tanks right on the doorstep of the Caucasus, and along with your transports previously bought, you’re ready to push as hard as you can against Russia.

For the US a late-game IC on Brazil for a bomber tech is a good move, I’ve tried this in the past and Germany was crushed within the next few rounds.

For the other powers I wouldn’t recommend building ICs, but that’s just my opinion. An India complex for UK is too easy for Japan to counter, they just have to stack FIC, and can do that faster than UK can build in India. Plus if you build your 3 units in India per turn your Atlantic navy will be weaker and you won’t be landing in Europe before Germany overruns Moscow.

I believe some sort of tutorial is necessary. I think I’d start with opening up the board and letting them look at it bare, to see the territorial ranges and values of each power. Then I’d explain how the money works, and then each units’ cost and movement, and unique unit rules. Obviously there are some unit rules (especially with sea) that a new player could easily forget about in-game, but that’s part of the learning process. Then I’d give everyone their cards and let them set themselves up. At least that much prior knowledge before they attempt to start playing I think, and from there they can learn strategies as they go.

Hmm well the one advantage that MIGHT be there if you ever need it is that is if you’re going KUSAF as J and build an Alaska IC. Midway and Alaska are one space apart, that’s closer than any other Pacific island, so you could keep a steady flow on the North American continent without requiring as many transports, protect your complex, and maintain a threat on WUSA all simultaneously. On the other hand, the Alaska complex is quite a difficult strat to pull off, it’s often too easy for the US to defend against and it’s usually only a matter of time before they push J off their continent. I wouldn’t recommend it.

I’m not sure about how it is in older versions, but with the way the Pacific sea zones are drawn on the AA42 game board, there isn’t a space you can get to from Midway that you can’t get to from Hawaii. If J wants to go island-hopping in the Pacific, it is in her best interests to completely ignore Midway, because it waste of time and resources to invade an island with virtually no strategic value. Isn’t Midway supposed to be equivalent to Wake when the Americans go island-hopping? Wake turns out to be of huge strategic importance for a US Pacific campaign, but not so for Midway for J’s campaign. I think this is a damn shame, especially considering the historic importance of this island. Unless I’m missing something…I’m an intermediate player at best, by no means an expert. Does Midway provide any strategic advantage, for either J or US, that Hawaii does not?

@Krieghund:

Loading onto and/or unloading from transports is definitely considered to be movement for land units, as they are moving from one space to another.

Yeah, true, what I meant was that the sea zones the transport moves through do not count as spaces for the land units, only the territories where they’re being loaded and offloaded do.