I’m creating a new map for 1914 so what would the community like to see changed?

One that I could think of is that it is a Axis port in SZ 110 and SZ 105. A few ideas that popped into my head that didnt work:

1. IPC’s (S. France is worth more)
2. Facilities (S. France has both)

If I take S. France, Italy is taking Normandy on I2 to bolster their Income. Straffing Normandy is also an option so that you can leave it French so the US cant use the IC there.

Southern France seems to be the Norm in my games. I usually take it to setup a port in the med for me to work off.

All depends on the plan.

2 Mechs & 2 Tanks or 2 Mechs, 1 Tank, 1 Tac Bomber

I know. It can screw up Japan at times, especially if a J4 calcutta crush is the plan. A Naval base in Hanan is more of a long term deal. It can be useful at times.

The Calcutta Crush isnt my go to plan, but it is something the Japanese player should know how to do. Its like how the German player should know how to do Sea Lion.

I think so too. Only part of it.

All this is very interesting. Only thing I will add is that a Naval Base on Hanan is interesting and is worth consideration. Allows you to make it back up to Japan, go Land in India, and raise hell in a few other spots. Also, if the Allies want it, they have to land units on it to take it.

@simon33:

@Hunter:

The IC for the US is essential. I would still land there too if it was still French.

Obviously not completely essential then if you are landing there in spite of it being French! No one can use the IC if it’s French unless Paris is liberated and actually buys some units.

As for 1sub+1bomber per turn for Germany, sounds like your group are playing Germany very differently to what I normally see and do.

Yes, we play a very different Germany. Almost Akin to how to play it in the 1942.2 game. Use Italian units in the East and use North Africa to draw as many units as possible into that area. Italy is playing defense at that point with its homeland.

@Narvik:

No no you are alle playing it wrong. The Allied invasion fleet should start from Gibraltar port, and project a threat to every landing spot. This fleet should also have a UK tranny with 2 French infantry, and another with 2 ANZAC infantry, and a UK Carrier with a French Fighter and an ANZAC Fighter. I would like to see the Axis defend against that, man. If you use the minors just to support the US landing, then you are using them wrong. They should secure your flanks, not stack as fodder. Obviously, with this strategy, Norway is out. Either Normandy or Southern France should be the main US landing spot, with separate UK, French and ANZAC landings in the adjacent territories or islands. Follow this advise and the Axis will never win again, man

Are you sure about never winning again? And SZ 91 is a good orgin point for any invasion fleet, no matter where it goes. (W. Germany, Norway, Normandy, Southern France, Northern Italy, Southern Italy) those are all targets. Obviously if we could, Berlin would be the ideal landing spot to take the Capital and downgrade the IC there so if they take it back, they have to deal with a Minor on their capital instead of a Major.

It is usually around round 4 or 5, Germany is always building Bombers and pushing a sub almost every turn. Its about 4 or 5 subs sitting there. Maybe more if the G1 Fleet attacks went really well for the Germans.

The IC for the US is essential. I would still land there too if it was still French.

Myself and another player, Corpo24 landed in Holland/Belgium as a distraction. We also had a minor UK force land in Normandy to draw units away. Granted it was the Oztea’s 1941 Setup, so the French had a transport. When we landed in those spots, the German player freaked out and build a ton of infantry and Italy took Normandy back before we smashed it with a Major US force and kept it for the rest of the game.

In most of my games, the Germans have 8+ Bombers sitting in Western Germany along with several subs sitting in SZ 126. So the 3 plane scramble is essential. To me, taking away a German NO is awesome. Sacking my fleet for the loss of 8 IPC’s at the minimum for the Germans isnt worth it. With 8+ Bombers, several subs and Misc. planes for the Germans is enough to ward me off of a landing in Norway. I would have to spend my money in Europe for the United States, that cant fly if Japan is going buck wild in the Pacific, which it usually is.

The Allies rely on reactionary play anyways. The Board should look different every game. The Allies should choose a landing spot accordingly. It just so happens that 8+ Bombers influences my decision.

Like I said, there are trade offs for each option. No one landing spot is perfect. It is a matter of the amount of sacrifice for the Allies to win the game.

@KGrimB:

@Hunter:

I am going to throw my hat into the ring.

I prefer landing in Normandy. To me, there is more upsides than just the IC you get. Landing there, you can protect the UK Fleet and allow them to build it up under the Protection of the American Fleet and a 3 Plane Scramble. The UK can also reinforce the US Landing almost straight away, if it has some transports. Normandy also touches France, Southern France, and Holland/Belgium. Another reason I like the Normandy is that it is 2 turns away from the Major IC’s of the Axis. You can build up on the Landing before a large force comes in and tries to smack you around.

Norway is 2 turns away from tanks. Normandy can be hit by a tank purchase in Western Germany.

You are right. I also like keeping my fleet, what good does it for the Allies if my Fleet is at the bottom of the ocean. Landing is a one time thing in Norway. I put money into my fleet,  I kinda want it to live. I see the loss of the US fleet in that manner, like the loss of a German one before Sea Lion. You sunk a lot of money into the fleet just to watch it sink to the bottom. Norway is a bit too North for me. Norway was the best in 1st edition because the US could drop a Major there and push 10 tanks out a turn. This whole debate is interesting. Everyone has their preferences, and I will not argue with any of these options. All 3 have trade offs, it is just a matter of how much you are willing to sacrifice to get to your goal.