If you’re going to play with Tech, then Rockets are a better option, especially if all three allies have that Tech.
Rockets are better for Germany (it has 3 aa guns and 3 enemy ICs at hand). For allies, it’s too slow prepare the setup, and Soviets should not roll for tech, maybe even UK shouldn’t
agree with folk here
if playing WD
German Rockets are far the best WD
would suggest taking ˝German Rockets˝ into serious consideration
Given the choice of Tech development for US, Rockets are better than Heavy Bombers, both tech’s cost the same to develope. Under LHTR 2.0 Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice and select the best of the 2 dice for damage. Given the fact that bombers can be shot down, and their damage is only slightly better than rockets, it makes since to go for rockets. US can place a Rocket in range of Germany on US1. The cost to build additional bombers is $15, AA are $5.
If you plan to attack Japan as US, perhaps you can build carriers, fighters and go for long range. Watch your japanese go nuts as you then threaten his outer sea(SZ 60), plus your fighters are quicker on Russian soil.
Personally, Rockets seem like a waste of IPC’s to me.
I agree with Emperor Mollari regarding the rockets, using LHTR 2.0. With OOB Heavy bomber are more dangerous and useful also for “conventional” attacks.
For sure rockets are a more effective way to SBR. But Heavy bomber may be used also to support land unit attacks.
I think that the usefulness of a Weapon Developement is also related to the number of unit available that can benefit from the improvement and also the number of time that such units use the improvement.
Having super submarine and no submarine… is not so great. Similarly, having super submarine and no opponent ships … is no so useful.
But Funcioneta makes a good point: Russia and UK have slightly difficult to spare IPCs from production to be used in Weapons Development.
@Emperor:
Given the choice of Tech development for US, Rockets are better than Heavy Bombers, both tech’s cost the same to develope. Under LHTR 2.0 Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice and select the best of the 2 dice for damage. Given the fact that bombers can be shot down, and their damage is only slightly better than rockets, it makes since to go for rockets. US can place a Rocket in range of Germany on US1. The cost to build additional bombers is $15, AA are $5.
Heavy bombers suck then. it only improves your attack for a bomber from 2/3 to 8/9. so that it increase a unit with a good shot at hitting anyway and used sparingly by 22.2% if it affected infantry instead then it would be great.
Has anyone ever tried a strategy where you go roughly 1/3 income towards Japan and 2/3 income towards Germany? This would probably be ideal if Pearl went bad or didn’t go at all. I’ve always wanted to try this, but haven’t got the chance yet.
Has anyone ever tried a strategy where you go roughly 1/3 income towards Japan and 2/3 income towards Germany? This would probably be ideal if Pearl went bad or didn’t go at all. I’ve always wanted to try this, but haven’t got the chance yet.
IMO this is not a good strategy, at 1/3 US can only place 1 ship or a plane against Japan each turn, this does nothing to hinder Japan’s efforts in Asia. There is a strategy I’ve had success with called SJF (Slow Japan First), US spends 2/3 income against japan (this nearly matches Japan’s income), Japan is forced to counter US builds and has little left over for their effort in Mainland Asia. UK, and Russia focus on Germany with 1/3 support from US.
I usually start shipping troops and a small fleet to africa to threaten the underbelly of Europe, building up enough forces over several turns to eventually launch a strike or reinforce WEU. At the same time I am slowly building a navy in the Pacific to make sure Japan doesnt go unchecked, and maybe if japan has their navy out of the way I will build a transport and take borneo, just to be an annoyance.
