What I feel is the real problem here is the problem with bases. Bases are for one, too expensive, and two, if the Allies can liberate each-others territories, whats restricting them from building bases on them? America should be able to build bases all over French territory, and even be able to Build on UK as well, on the historical basis that the US kept the UK war effort running with endless military supplies.

I’m all for a Sierra Leon change, but what all of us really want is more flexibility of bases.

@Arthur:

@JeroldTheGreat:

Id like to challenge YGs solid defensive line and propose a new idea of Defend the North, Attack the South. The focus of this strategy is to overwhelm the axis with too many fronts, forcing Germany to distract too many of its forces away from Leningrad. By focusing power into Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and even Greece, many of Germany’s early game infantry and artillery will be wasted or extended too far south in an attempt to regain valuable Russian NOs. This strategy needs an unpopular UK Greece landing to help with pincer attacks and a lot of offensive buys but could prove to be a valuable fresh blood strategy if done right.

Germany has the advantage of massive mobility and ability to add extra firepower with the air force.  I the UK goes to Greece on turn 1, I don’t think that it would be that much of a headache.  They already have 5 troops stationed in Bulgaria.  A couple of planes added to the fight will make it easy to destroy the UK guys in Greece.  It seems a big waste of 13ish IPCs that need to be used in to initially smack Italy in Africa.

I also don’t see how a Russian army could get into Romania, Bulgaria, or Albania against a competent German player.  Anything standing next to Germany can be obliterated when Germany finally starts an attack into Russia.  It isn’t until R4 or R5 that Russia can even contemplate a significant counter attack.

You must be playing against German opponents who have a balanced play with half the money spent on fleet.  I spend 90% of the money against Russia, leaving only a bit left over to purchase a few infantry to counter early land invasions.  I can always get to Moscow around G6, but often decide to divert around it for an economic victory.

More like I can barely find an opponent to play…
Well, sounds like a bust so ill just disappear awkwardly back into the shadows for a while…

One thing that I’ve wanted to see is the incorporation of Pro-axis neutrals in South America. I first thought that it really might not be very historically accurate and that it would tip the balance in favor of allies too much, but seeing as the allies are under powered in this game it may help a little.

After reading Black Elks post about Sierra Leon, it made me think about the board in general and open a thread specifically to discuss Sea Zones. Do Sea Zones represent any actual naval ranges? Any sea zones that make no sense?
Hawaii to Japan, US to Spain and not UK?

The calculator is just a tool, and pretty limited one at that. I think it’s overrated and gets over-relied upon.

Anyways, this thread is getting WAY off topic.

I couldn’t agree more

And could you guys pound my alternate strategy some more?

Id like to challenge YGs solid defensive line and propose a new idea of Defend the North, Attack the South. The focus of this strategy is to overwhelm the axis with too many fronts, forcing Germany to distract too many of its forces away from Leningrad. By focusing power into Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and even Greece, many of Germany’s early game infantry and artillery will be wasted or extended too far south in an attempt to regain valuable Russian NOs. This strategy needs an unpopular UK Greece landing to help with pincer attacks and a lot of offensive buys but could prove to be a valuable fresh blood strategy if done right.

What you can also reckon too is the possibility of sneaking tanks and mechs away to the far east, where even though all Russian territories are worth one, the sheer number of them are a huge income.

I just wanted to discuss the tricky play of feinting SeaLion to actually land full force in Archangel. I’ve never really seen the downside to this play other than it is extremely predictable and dangerous as you leave all of your transports wide open/trapped up north. As seeing that Germany’s main goal is to conquer Moscow asap, landing a Certain-Death invasion force two spaces away from the capital seems like a much better option than letting Russia “RedTurtle” while you slowly march through the winter. Have any of you actually attempted this? I think the term Operation “Angels Landing” would be hilariously fitting.

Alternatives:
Operation “Up and Over”
Operation “Artic Storm”
Operation “Red Wedding”
Operation “Kremlin’s Back Door”

(Sorry if this tactic has already been termed or if it has already been played to death)

@Kreuzfeld:

Actually, going back to the old Transports costing 8 would probably favour the allies massivly.

The old transports had a 1 in combat and was a hitpoint to take as casuality.

Lets take US as an example. If they where to make a fleet with 8 transports to threathen to land in europe. With transports costing 7, they have to use about 56 IPC for the transports. They will probably need about 4 other transports as well, so in total, they pay about 82 IPC for the pleasure. If transports cost 8, they pay 96 IPC. So where is the gain? Well, the gain is that they can now reduce the number of DDs needed to stand against luftwaffe. If we assume that 8 TTs is with the main fleet, then they would need about 5-6 fewer DDs in the main fleet. If we say they need 4 DDs less (then, they have the same number of combat dice in the main fleet, but with 4 extra HP), then they save 32 IPC in DDs. So buying TTs at 8 with 1 hp and 1 Combatdie will make the us invastionfleet at least 16 IPCs cheaper, probably more in the range of 24 to 30 IPCs cheaper.

The point to making transport cheaper would also be to help out Germany with Sea Lion, as it nearly always proves to be too costly of an operation.

So have any of you found it more or less beneficial to have France producing troops and being even of a small effort? I’m really interested in whether France as a nation is actually an important factor in this game. I’d always just assume that making France was more of an interesting idea and was never actually a nation that was meant to be played, even during late stages of the game.