I can tell you that at least in the games we’ve played it has made a huge difference at crucial moments, playing a big part in helping to turn the tide of the war. For the Axis, being able to do an SBR on the UK or India is almost necessary to facilitate their capture - more IPCs spent on repairs to ICs means less infantry available for home defense. Same idea applies to a Russian invasion, especially once you get close to Moscow. On the other side, it can cause Germany to have fewer units at hand during an Operation Barbarossa, and it’s useful for the U.S. to use on Japan as well. To those powers starting off with relatively weak economies, such as Italy and ANZAC, being victim to a successful SBR is often the second to last nail in the coffin for them.

Notice that I’ve just been referring to SBRs on ICs. To be honest with you, in my personal experience I haven’t had many instances in which I would rather dedicate one of my stat or tact bombers to a SBR on a sea or air base instead of using it in general combat. At most, you can do 6 points of damage to a base, and since they are considered operational at up to 2 points of damage, you can only hope to make your opponent pay 4 IPC per turn to get them back up and running.

So, at least in my mind, SBRs are definitely worth it if you are using them on ICs, and are most effective on major ICs. However, when considering using them to hit bases it’s probably more worth your while to commit the rest of your strat and tact bombers to general combat. That’s my 2 cents.

Spendo02 - Appreciate the feedback. I honestly never even took the US disrupting my convoy zones into account!

Vance - sent you a message if you don’t mind checking it.

That’s seems like a pretty sound strategy - I appreciate you taking time to write it all out for me. Would it be worth landing at least one infantry on maybe New Britain or the Solomon Islands in order to deny ANZAC its NOs? Or is it really not going to matter much since New South Wales can only produce 3 units per turn?

In your personal opinion, am I better trying for India instead?

In the event that one of the Dutch territories is taken over by one of the Allies through noncom, then later captured by Japan, whose control would they if they are liberated by a different Allied power? For instance, Java is ANZAC, then captured by Japan, then liberated by the UK. Would the 4 IPCs now be part of the UK or would they return to ANZAC?

Vance, Gargantua, ghr2 - I appreciate the feedback. This gives me a lot to mull over before the game tomorrow. I’ve decided to focusing on taking out India. Vance - I really like the idea of massing around the Caroline Is. on J1. ANZAC will probably feel compelled to build land units, and I might be able to lure that British battleship out of sz 37 if he feels an Australian invasion is imminent.

In fact, I feel like if the UK and ANZAC start preparing for an Indian invasion I might be able to change course and just take Sydney on J2, especially if some of the ANZAC planes move to the East Indies. Does that seem unrealistic?

Agreed - I’m a little hesitant to actually make the changes at this point until everything seems a little more finalized.

So my friends and I are starting up a 5 player game the day after tomorrow using the regular Alpha +3 rules plus the recent “Sea Lion” changes made by Larry and Krieghund this past week. I’m playing as Japan for the first time in AAG40 - I played as them a couple of times before in the 2nd Edition and original Pacific games but it never went very well for me.

Is it better to focus on taking as much of China instead of making a b-line for the East Indies? I’ve heard people talk about a “Kill India First” strategy but I never quite figured out how that plays out. Should I attack the US preemptively or keeping them out of the game as long as possible? Is it better to draw all of your ships and planes into the sea zones and territories near Japan, or is it worth trying to maintain a strong defensive perimeter? Is it futile to attempt an invasion of Australia?  I feel like there are just so many things to take into consideration with Japan - at least for me, they’re the most challenging to play.

I’m open to any suggestions!

To be clear, an Allied power can only take control of a French territory by recapturing it from the Axis while Paris is held by an Axis power.  French territories get no special treatment.

So that I understand: While Paris is under Germany’s control, I could land American units in Morocco but would only control the territory (i.e. acquire its IPC value) if Morocco was under Axis control. FIC would be the same situation. So the rule is that, assuming their capital has been captured, I can’t just move Allied units into French territories (or any friendly territory) and acquire them. I can only control the territories if I liberate them from Axis control.

The exception to this is rule would be the Dutch territories, correct? As the UK or ANZAC, I could just move into Java during noncombat movement and acquire them? Or, is it the same situation as above where I must first liberate them?

Cool - straightens that all up for me. Here’s another one: French Indo China’s IPCs constituent a part of the French economy at the start of the game. I know that Japan or an Allied nation can move in and take control of it. As I understand it, this would be the same as any territory being temporarily controlled by a friendly power while the original owner’s capital is under enemy occupation.

So my question is this: in the event that Paris is liberated, French Indo China would then revert back to French control as long as an Axis player hasn’t captured it, right? I assume this is the case, but just wanted to make sure there wasn’t some unique about FIC that I wasn’t aware of.

Also - for Japan to occupy FIC would technically require a declaration of war by Japan against France, wouldn’t it?

Could anyone state this Alpha +3 changed sub rule in a different way? I’m having a difficult time understanding exactly what it means:

“Also note that transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”

Does this mean that I can only do an amphibious assault if one of the sub owner’s warships was in the sea zone at the end of Combat Movement, or if one of MY warships was present then? I’m just very confused!  :?
Moreover, why even change the rule?