@Grigoriy:
Not bad. To the not losing original armor I would add fighters as well, as they are even harder to replace.
That’s true, but it can be hard to do with the need to suppress allied shipping. I do, however, routinely avoid any chance of an AA shot against German aircraft. There plenty of other useful things for German airplanes to attack, so I believe its a good strategy for preserving the Luftwaffe.
Regards,
Here are my Do’s and Don’ts for Germany:
DO: Buy at least 24 inf in the first 3 turns.
DON’T: Buy any capital ships!
DO: Capture any territory you can hold on to for at least one turn.
DON’T: Capture any territory you can not hold until next turn unless it blocks an Allied player from doing something you must prevent. (e.g. cut off planes from landing, or block ships from passing).
DO: Pick an Axis strategy for winning (take Russia or Economic) and stick with it unless the Allied player makes the other option more appealing. Both Germany and Japan must be going for the same type of win.
DON’T: Lose more than a couple of your original armor.
DO: Allow the allies to take Western Europe if it means no support for Russia defenses.
DON’T: Allow the allies to take Eastern Europe.
DO: Protect and build a fleet in the Mediterranian Sea. The added mobility to German forces will keep Russian and UK defensive forces stretched thin.
DON’T: Allow any allied transports to survive for the first 4 turns.
Bah! Historical accuracy is not what we are going for here. “Is it entertaining?”, is the only question I am interested in. :D
This house rule replaces Russia restricted. All IC are limited to a maximum number of units produced per turn equal to the IPC production of the area they occupy. So the maximum production for the Karelia is 3 units per turn. 8 units per turn for germany, 6 for southern Europe, 8 units for UK, etc.
SBR has an additional effect for every bomber that successfully completes an SBR (i.e. not shot down by AA) place a chip under the IC bombed. The max unit production of that area is reduced by 1 unit for each chip under the IC. All chips are removed at the end of the placement phase for the owner of the IC. This SBR effect is in addition to the normal IPC bombing damage. Heavy bombers place 3 chips under an IC for each successful SBR.
While I agree that the US position is improved. The UK Asian position and the Russian position overall is worsened. The US can spare its fighter in China, but what about the UK fighter in India, it looks like an easy kill for Japan without US aid?
The Japanese could take Yakut and SFE on turn 1. Germany could take Karelia on turn 1. That leaves Russia at 17 IPCs if she takes nothing back. The Allies need to send resources to help Russia immediately, or Moscow will fall (not completely historically inaccurate). This fact I believe tempers the advantages gained by the U.S. going first.
Also UK attacks on the German fleet will not be overly productive as they will force the UK fleets away from the UK seazone, this means any naval units built by the UK turn 1 (AC?) will have no protection from the Luftwaffe. If German subs escape, they could move into the UK seazone blocking US transports on US2 from reaching Finland. Also a UK AC on turn 1 can not receive US fighters for defense before a German airstrike can be made.
Just some thoughts. If I ever get enough free time I would love to playtest this scenario with a PBEM game.
Cheers!
Bill, Your suggestion is sound. However, if Germany took Syria as well and there is a German transport at Egypt, then the IC should not be build, because Germany can reach it by transport.
Also be prepared to send USAF planes to the IC to help defend it.
Cheers!
Here’s an idea. How about playing the turns in reverse order, US first/Russia last. It would certainly change things around. It might even be a good alternative to RR.
Cheers!
The individual strategy of your country is not as important as the combined strategy of you and your allies. Which ever team coordinates together the best will win the game. Your own actions will flow naturally to the best end of the group strategy. So get together with your fellow players at the start of the game and at regular intervals throughout to remain as well coordinated as possible.
well, if the usa screws up the transport thing, and has an open transport (I usually mess it up)
you can always move the aa gun to finland, then later karelia, and free the other 2 up.
That’s a good point. The US AA guns tend to gather dust anyway, so shipping them to Europe might make them useful.
It could be argued that the Russain player might chose to build 8 inf and move the AA to Nov. This would leave the German player with a choice to either SBR Moscow, or use the BMB in sinking the UK fleet as usual.
If the German player goes for SBR, then the Allied fleet has a higher chance of survival/causing Luftwaffe casualties.
The main goal I see in moving an AA gun to the East front (besides possibly downing planes) is to make the Japanese player hesitate. Since strafing with a few inf and some planes would become too risky. The Japanese player would most likely wait until it was certain that the territory could be taken.
Just a thought. Since Japanese rely on Air power in the beginning of the Asia campaign, would there be benefit in Russia building an AA gun in the first turn and Moving the AA gun on Moscow towards Yakut. It could arrive on R2 to ward off a J2 assault.
Opinions?
The India IC on UK1 is a valid move. Of course you must be sure you can hold it or its a waste. Done correctly it can be a real nightmare for Japan and Germany.
When I play the Allies I like to have an IC in Asia because it means rapid deployment of forces to the theatre of battle. India is a nice choice because it can be held turn 1 with minimal effort, and it has a capacity to produce 3 units.
Key points in building defending a India IC.
Cheers
From the article:
The poll, conducted among 4,500 refugees in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Jordan, was the first to ask where they would want to live if Israel recognised a right of return.
Only 10 per cent of the refugees chose Israel, even if they were allowed to live there with Palestinian citizenship; 54 per cent opted for the Palestinian state; 17 per cent for Jordan or Lebanon, and 2 per cent for other countries. Another 13 per cent rejected all these options, preferring to sit it out and wait for Israel to disappear, while 2 per cent didn’t know.
The future of more than three million refugees is critical to any lasting peace. It was one of the unresolved issues that caused the July 2000 Camp David summit to break down.
El Jefe:
Z,
Many are pushing Israel to allow Palestinians to be Israeli citizens, or to retreat and give more land to Palestinians.Fanatics do not want this survey info made public because then there is proof that it is a very small group wanting citizenship or land or even to stay.
10% want citizenship, 54% want land, that’s 64% total. That’s almost a super majority! Only 19% said that they would chose to leave. Please explain your position because I think the numbers say otherwise.
Plus, I wish to point out as an aside that the OFFICIAL reason that Isreal drove these people from their land 50+years ago and refuses to let them return is that they are not Jewish, and therefore they would dilute Jewish political power in Isreal (a so called democracy). I find it upsetting that the US strongly backs a country that so openly defies the most basic principles of democracy, and that we act disgusted when the Palestinians call for the destruction of a state that denies them citizenship based soley on their religion.
@Deviant:Scripter:
Why not?
Don’t tell me that it’s becuase they can’t get married, because they can and do in Canada.
They can’t get married in the US, and their marriage has no legal standing in the US. So US citizens that enter a same sex marriage in Canada and return to the US are legally not married. Hence they can not get divorced. But this is all a crazy legal aside.
What you are looking for is this. I was arguing that a study which compares homosexuals in long term relationships versus married heterosexuals is flawed because the homosexuals are not bound by the legal constrictions imposed by marriage. A better study would have compared unmarried heterosexual couples to homosexual couples.
@El:
Z,
Your 70% and 50% are ficticious #s thrown out there by non-experts and accepted by experts to support their cause. Much like the ‘fact’ that “10% of the population is homosexual.” tudies in the US and France put the #s more between 1.5 and 3%.
Well the 50% divorce rate (in the US) is clearly and accurately tracked by the US government since all marriages and divorces are registered with the government.
I will grant you that the 70% infidelity rate is the highest published estimate, and probably not reliable. Let’s put it at 10%, which is more likely. Its hard to accurately count adultery since you don’t have to register an affair with the government. If homosexuality is =< 3%, then all the gay people in America could get married and have sex outside of marriage, and there would still be more straight people having sex outside of marriage. So why is infidelity an issue in legalizing Gay marriage?
BTW, let’s just assume for the moment that only 1% of the population is gay. That’s still more than 2 milliion Americans that are Gay. That’s a lot of people.
Oh, and another problem for the homosexual community…
In Canada, they can now legally marry. So a small rush of homorriages(Ihave invented a new word) have occurred, due to visiting couples from the US. One thing they overlooked was that in order to get a divorce they must be legal residents of Canada for one year. Heard that on the news tis morning. (Heh-heh!)
Why is this a problem for the homosexual community? Such a minor restriction pales in comparison to the outright ban in the U.S. A.
@Deviant:Scripter:
What “environmental factors” contribute to gays getting divorced?
Gays can’t get divorced.
This study reads to me a lot like the the pro-slavery studies that argued blacks were inferior to whites so slavery was okay. They would point out how few blacks in the US could read and write, and other clearly environmental factors as clear proof. Nevermind that the slaves being counted were denied access to any sort of formal education.
Homosexuals are denied the institution of marriage. So why is it surprising that they do not follow the rules of marriage.
Nevermind the statistics for heterosexual marriages that show infidelity rates as high as 70%, and divorce rates in excess of 50%. Clearly traditional marriage is a solid cornerstone institution of human civilization.
The study should have compared unmarried hetero couples versus homosexual couples since that would have been more accurate.
El Jeffe,
What is the point you are trying to make? I am deeply confused.
I love to play Japan with my friend playing German cause it’s demanding and gives more fun. But everytime US and GB play “Shuck Shuck”, I feel frustrated. If Germany fortifies Norway and Karelia, providing Karelia is taken by German, then the allies would land on western Europe or northern Africa and ,next, onto sothern Europ. Not enough time for Japan to reach USSR before Germany is fallen or falling by the fucking Shuck Shuck. Gimme some thips to prevent it.
Why are you defending Norway? To hell with Norway. It is a punk territory with minimal strategic value.
As for killing the shuck shuck:
–---------------------------------
Assuming: You sank as many allied ships as possible on G1…
Send the Japanese airforce to Europe on Turn 3 or 4. Then hit the fleet in a 1-2 punch with the German and Japan airforces the next turn. Depending on which airforce you want to have some left of determines which Axis airforce strikes first. Ideally you want to hit the fleet when the US has a bunch of infantry in E.Can waiting to come over. Then, all that inf money has to sit idle for 2 whole turns: 1 to rebuild transports, 1 to bring them over.
Cheers!
Just a thought…but how many of you play by the rule of IPC victory?
JoePar22
I hope everyone does since it is not an optional rule. :D I like the IPC victory rule because it keeps the Allies honest in that they have to fight everywhere and can not focus on just the German capital. I think what annoys people is it is possible to win without the Axis taking even 1 capital.