GK for that! LOL
Axis SBR Campaign
-
yeah i was misunderstanding your initial commentary on sinkiang. Sure, with just china needed to be in range that’s easier to secure. so by japan turn 3 you can start hitting russia’s economy with that initial build.
always take out the transport in sz 59, of course. it’s still perfectly feasible to secure india on turn 1 while doing that.
yeah, bombers are certainly flexible units. i’m a big fan. and i was going to suggest german territory as the most secure landing zone as well :)
I still think, however the details play out, that putting pressure on japan is the right general response when they spend their first $30 on air power rather than transports or IC’s that will bring consistent amounts of troops to bear for the rest of the game. but there’s also another potential option, which is that if the axis invest money in bombers, russia could feasibly afford to build 2 aa guns on round 2 (and/or UK move the indian aa gun back). Then move them dynamically to try to make bombing russia by at least 1 axis power require 2 anti-aa rolls per run. Particularly if japan’s chosen landing options are limited this could be a nasty countermove at a relatively low cost.
-
Hard for me to argue against America putting pressure on Japan considering my devote insistence that letting Japan run free is doom for the allies and that America should, in general, at least threaten Japan to keep them “honest.” By honest, i mean keep their fleet in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, not the Atlantic Ocean!
-
Could a few aa guns counter this strat pretty nicley? Us could bring 2 or more, Uk can bring 2 or more. And russia can buy at least 1 to save all the SBR damage. Now bobmers are dodging three aa guns firing for each raid.
And when this is countered, the axis powers are way behind with all those bombers, and few land units.
-
Perhaps. If you play with the always active AA Gun then investing in guns would shrink the advantage or force the axis to take land adjacent to Russia.
However, you have to build the guns, you have to move the guns and you have to protect the guns. Remember, AA Guns are double edged swords. Germany and Japan can afford the extra units needed to take your territories without risking fighters if they want too. Can Russia afford the same?
And if you don’t replace the guns, what’s protecting England from -16 IPC a round from bombers?
-
@Cmdr:
Perhaps. If you play with the always active AA Gun then investing in guns would shrink the advantage or force the axis to take land adjacent to Russia.
However, you have to build the guns, you have to move the guns and you have to protect the guns. Remember, AA Guns are double edged swords. Germany and Japan can afford the extra units needed to take your territories without risking fighters if they want too. Can Russia afford the same?
And if you don’t replace the guns, what’s protecting England from -16 IPC a round from bombers?
Uk normally ships it Indian aa gun to russia anyway. The US usually ships on of its aa guns to europe or Africa. The US can afford many AA guns. Russia can even afford 1 or 2. I mean you are talking about reducing Russia down to no income, i think a 5 or 10 ipc investment by russia to prevent that is quite worth it. The Uk would never leave London without an aa gun obviously. if they sent an extra on top of the indian aa gun, they would replace for 5 ipc.
Lets assume after germany and japan buy bombers r1, the allies see whats coming. Russia can build aa gun r2 and/or r3 once seeing the amount of bombers being purchased by the axis player. UK will have one aa gun in caucus r2, shifting the caucus gun to an adjacent terrirory. Also r2, uk can purchase an aa gun and ship its gun to arch r2. If US normally ships an a gun north, it can have a gun in arch by r3, shifting guns east thru moscow. Else, for sure by r4. Thats 7 aa guns, 3 extra buys, (2 by russia, 1by UK) by r3 or r4. So for a total of 15 ipcs, bombers now have to face 3 aa shot to do an SBR, which I doubt any sane player would.
As far as trading territoy now, on the east side, you wont have to worry about the japs for awhile r6 maybe? Then if you cant defend the eastern swapping areas, you pull the gun back. But at this point, you are far ahead on land units, as japan has invested heavy into bombers, so you might be able to hold those eastern territory for some time. In the West, well those territories aren’t being swapped normally anyway. And they especially arent if germany bought 2 bombers in the first 2 rounds. Kareila is usually held by allied landings, caucus + W Russia held by russia.
-
@Cmdr:
Perhaps. If you play with the always active AA Gun then investing in guns would shrink the advantage or force the axis to take land adjacent to Russia.
Always active means they fire at any planes that fly over? This is an OOB rule right? Another rule set eliminates this for revised? I know the AA50 version wont allow firing at planes flying by.
-
Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.
OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.
UK +1 AA, USA +1 AA that’s only +2 AA. There are 6 avenues of approach to Moscow and 3 avenues of approach to Caucasus. You’re going to need a total of 9 AA Guns to force the axis to fly over two guns to each target (and even then, they can go by SZ 16 to hit Caucasus if stationed in the right place.)
Assuming 3 AA guns for India, Caucasus and Russia (the 3 that almost always end up in Russia anyway.) This means you’ll need to buy 6 more. AA Guns coming from America are going to take forever to get there or such a large investment their worth will be utterly mitigated in the grand scheme of things. (AA Gun from E. USA to Algeria walk it to Caucasus or build two big fleets one for the med and one for the Atlantic to ship it there or the same up north.)
That means your guns are almost certainly coming from England/Russia. That means 9 guns, -3 starting, purchase 6 guns, 5 IPC each cost 30 IPC. Seems low until Russia starts losing fighters trying to liberate land from the Axis after they lose it. Remember, Germany and Japan can easily trade Inf/Arm for a territory. Can Russia do the same? Over 6 territories??? (That would be 3 each for Germany/Japan, but at least 4 for Russia with America/England trying for the other two.) Remember, there’s now an AA Gun on all of them. And if you don’t liberate them ALL, the axis are just going to pull that AA Gun back out of the way forcing you to buy another one.
And don’t forget, the axis are not locked into attacking your AA Guns. They can do something else like obliterate England’s IC for a turn instead while they steal a gun and open a hole. You, on the other hand, are now locked into all these AA Guns that cannot attack anything and are now a huge liability because of the increased threat to your (Russia’s) fighters.
-
@Cmdr:
Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.
OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.
UK +1 AA, USA +1 AA that’s only +2 AA. There are 6 avenues of approach to Moscow and 3 avenues of approach to Caucasus. You’re going to need a total of 9 AA Guns to force the axis to fly over two guns to each target (and even then, they can go by SZ 16 to hit Caucasus if stationed in the right place.)
Assuming 3 AA guns for India, Caucasus and Russia (the 3 that almost always end up in Russia anyway.) This means you’ll need to buy 6 more. AA Guns coming from America are going to take forever to get there or such a large investment their worth will be utterly mitigated in the grand scheme of things. (AA Gun from E. USA to Algeria walk it to Caucasus or build two big fleets one for the med and one for the Atlantic to ship it there or the same up north.)
That means your guns are almost certainly coming from England/Russia. That means 9 guns, -3 starting, purchase 6 guns, 5 IPC each cost 30 IPC. Seems low until Russia starts losing fighters trying to liberate land from the Axis after they lose it. Remember, Germany and Japan can easily trade Inf/Arm for a territory. Can Russia do the same? Over 6 territories??? (That would be 3 each for Germany/Japan, but at least 4 for Russia with America/England trying for the other two.) Remember, there’s now an AA Gun on all of them. And if you don’t liberate them ALL, the axis are just going to pull that AA Gun back out of the way forcing you to buy another one.
And don’t forget, the axis are not locked into attacking your AA Guns. They can do something else like obliterate England’s IC for a turn instead while they steal a gun and open a hole. You, on the other hand, are now locked into all these AA Guns that cannot attack anything and are now a huge liability because of the increased threat to your (Russia’s) fighters.
lol, dont know where u got 9 guns from. But i guess if it helps your theory, mgiht as well throw it out there.
Caucasus, due to the sea zone, will only have 1 aa. The risk/reward for bombing caucasus is in russia favor, as it still has a 1/6 chance to kill the bomber, however, the damage is capped at 4. I did not suggest to place a gun in persia and/or india. allies wont be able to hold them normally. U need 7 guns to surround moscow. russia gets three in normal play, (1 from india). Uk can send another 1 in one turn to Arch. for a 5 ipc cost. USA can get one to arch by 3 or 4, for no cost. This leaves russia to buy 2. or you could have uk buy 2, and have russia buy 1. With Arch/W Russia/Caucasus/Kazakh/Novo/Evenki/moscow covered by 7 guns, at a cost of 5-10 ipc for russia, 5-10 ipc for uk.
This makes bombing moscow unfeasible. Sure you can do other things with those bombers. And you might as well, since you spent all that money on them. However, Russia is not being threatened signifcantly more by them, and now russia has an advantage in ground units, as germany and japan put mucho bucks into the air. Trading the territories that surround moscow is very managable, especially when japan is much slower in bringing enough stuff to threaten eastern moscow in the early game.
-
@Cmdr:
Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.
OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.
Didnt realize lots of players “say” that. Does that mean it isnt a rule set like LHTR, but simply house rules? Im not aware of many house rules, so its hard to respond to a strategy based on the house rules if they arent specified.
-
@Cmdr:
Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.
OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.
Didnt realize lots of players “say” that. Does that mean it isnt a rule set like LHTR, but simply house rules? Im not aware of many house rules, so its hard to respond to a strategy based on the house rules if they arent specified.
More on this, why have players made this a rule? I think rules that restricts an approach that simply buys bombers to win should be encouraged, not changed!!
-
yes, and as you point out you don’t even need anywhere near 7 guns. this isn’t picking and choosing routes for the japanese – they’ve landed their bombers on a given turn, then russia needs only to move 2 aa guns to block the available eastern route. and as previous poster pointed out, caucusus bombing is far inferior.
Really though, I would just buy 2 aa guns as russia and be done with it. cover the eastern route, then if japan moves its bombers to europe, consider covering the western route instead. stalling even half of such a bombing strategy is sufficient.
-
lol, dont know where u got 9 guns from. But i guess if it helps your theory, mgiht as well throw it out there.
Well my dear Watson, that was easy.
1 - AA Gun in Evenki
2 - AA Gun in Novosibirsk
3 - AA Gun in Kazakh
4 - AA Gun in Persia
5 - AA Gun in W. Russia
6 - AA Gun in Arkhangelsk
7 - AA Gun in Russia
8 - AA Gun in Caucasus
9 - AA Gun in UkraineIt’s the only way to cover every possible avenue to Russia’s industrials with at least two AA Guns, but as I had mentioned, SZ 16 is a blind spot you just cannot fill (short of playing AARe and getting Combined Arms for a battleship you build there.)
yes, and as you point out you don’t even need anywhere near 7 guns. this isn’t picking and choosing routes for the japanese – they’ve landed their bombers on a given turn, then russia needs only to move 2 aa guns to block the available eastern route. and as previous poster pointed out, caucusus bombing is far inferior.
Really though, I would just buy 2 aa guns as russia and be done with it. cover the eastern route, then if japan moves its bombers to europe, consider covering the western route instead. stalling even half of such a bombing strategy is sufficient.
You could certainly risk it with only 5 AA Guns, but as I just showed above, you would NOT be covering all avenues. Besides, any player worth even setting up the board for, would never be locked into a single or pair of flight paths if engaging in this strategy. It would be ever so easy to put a bomber in the north, one in the south and a couple in the middle or put a couple in the north and one in the middle and a couple in the south, or whatever. The idea is, force them to cover ALL avenues or leave avenues open and thus waste the extra AA Guns they bought as you fly around them.
-
nah.
japan doesn’t have unlimited options, certainly not early. and russia’s initial 2-aa gun build and move of it’s starting two aa-guns to create the necessary buffer can be completely reactionary to japan’s build and placement.
japan’s not going to securely take both buryatia and china in time to land it’s first 2 bombers. instead, it might first take and secure china, and land it’s first two bombers there. then when russia responds by spending $10 and setting up the aa’s, japan gets an extremely risky bombing option on japan’s turn 3. so next turn they might expand a little, secure either india or buryatia (again, has to be reliably hold-able), and try to position to bomb from multiple directions at once. sitting back further with bombers (manchuria, kwangtung) telegraphs a landing in europe, which is problematic in other ways because the allies can see it coming and make that dangerous.
so by japan turn 4 50% of the bombers purchased can make a reasonable bombing run against moscow facing just typical AA-gun resistance, while the other half face 2 AA’s (again, assuming it’s not worth $5 of russia’s money to prevent, which it probably isn’t at that point).
delaying and minimizing the damage of a bombing strategy in this way should be sufficient to allow the rest of the allies time to punish the axis for the expenditure. A KGF will have more time to work as japan’s initial conquests were delayed, or a CJF will do a better than average job of containing japanese expansion and limiting their bombing routes for an even longer period.
and as axisofevil pointed out, his argument (and mine) is that bombing caucusus is an inferior option for the allies and shouldn’t be considered in aa gun defense options.
-
Russia’s not even going to think about needing any built AA Guns for at least the first few rounds. This isn’t like Russia on turn one says “Hey, the Axis are going to build 6-8 bombers and bomb me into the stone age, I’m going to build 3 Infantry, 3 AA Guns on Round 1!”
This is more like on Round 3 Russia starts getting hit by 4-6 bombers. It is then and only then that Russia would even start building AA Guns and that’s assuming they can afford it. (BTW that would be Russia Round 4 they would start building AA Guns.) But at that point, they’ve already gone almost a full turn without income (definitely a full turn if they spent 10+ IPC on AA Guns after being bombed for 24 IPC!) so the Axis have already accomplished their goal and can now use their bombers to trade territories and ignore your AA Guns.
So if Russia does blow 10 IPC or more on AA Guns, as you suggest, you just gave the Axis a gift. Now they can steal your guns or force you to stack them (negating them in either event) and it cost the Axis nothing because their bombers are exceptionally useful in long range territory trading.
-
that makes absolutely no sense.
the original posted strategy suggested 1 bomber build for germany and 2 bombers built for japan on game round 1.
that immediately, clearly, speaks to an SBR strategy. It’s simply sub-optimal to think those bombers won’t be bombing russia.
so after you see that you spend $10 on round 2 as russia. And you can totally afford to because germany just spent $15….
(addendum – I meant round 3 as russia. you have that much time)
-
And if Russia on round 2 builds 2 or 3 AA Guns, do the Axis NEED to bomb them? Didn’t they just basically throw away 10-15 IPC which is about what the Axis would have been able to bomb them for on Round 3 anyway? Meanwhile, the axis now have all those extra bombers for long range threats.
You’d be amazed the interesting challenges just one extra German bomber causes the Allies in the hands of a relatively good to exceptional player. Now imagine how 3 German bombers can totally screw up your entire afternoon!
So let’s move into the fantasy world of a Russia that can magically afford all these AA Guns and still have an army (though in reality they’d probably be seriously considering vacating Stalingrad at that point, but whatever.)
3 Japanese bombers makes America’s life hell. That’s -10 IPC from W. USA each round. 2 German bombers makes England’s life hell that’s -8 IPC from England each round.
So you have an America earning 29 IPC and an England earning 4 IPC (For East and West Canada, since Japan and Germany have everything else.) Maybe they are earning 8 IPC since Russia is magic in this fantasy and can magically produce AA Guns and army and win the game all by themselves.
Dunno…doesn’t seam like a stellar situation for the allies. What, are you going to put AA Guns on Transports and float them around England to stop Germany from attacking you there? Or how about guns in SZ 55 and SZ 54 to stop Japan?
Basically, your entire rebuttal to the strategy is flawed. If Russia buys the AA Guns, in reality, they’re crippled to the point they cannot recover anyway. It would take seriously more than 3 AA Guns or 4 AA Guns to defend Russia the way you want too (forcing all incoming bombers to risk two AA Gun shots) and if you do manage to get them, you’re not going to be strong enough to stop the Axis. And, if you just have amazing luck with the dice, and I’m talking upper 5% here, and you manage to keep Germany and Japan back AND get enough AA Guns and don’t need to risk trading armor every round or lose a fighter to AA Guns to trade territories, then America and England are easy targets for SBR damage and you’ll be alone.
There’s no way out. No matter what you do, the Axis can counter with an easy stab with those bombers. You’re only hope is to overwhelm the Axis with allied units before they can ramp up. And that assumes, of course, they don’t see your silly rebuttal and pump out tanks to crush you before you can exploit them.
-
ummmm…. where to start.
i do agree that one extra german bomber can be very powerful. certainly has its merits.
two japanese bombers, on the other hand, is sub-optimal except for the bombing strategy outlined. sure they’re useful, but the delay in large asian land forces is very costly for japan. so you are handicapping your ability to quickly pressure russia by other means.
bombing the us is completely illogical. wasting precious japanese resources on the one allied power that has a hard time getting it’s cash to market doesn’t make sense, nor do you have a reasonable base of bombing operations if you wanted to.
Bombing england with germany is also relatively weak. might as well have england bomb germany. strategically it’s a net loss for the cash-strapped axis.
the overblown statements about $10 costing russia the game don’t make sense in light of japan and germany’s strategically and monetarily expensive builds. I would never build more than 2 aa’s as russia, and as i’ve explained in the other posts, i get all of the value without any more. it’s a one time cost, and aa’s held back in western asia are neither a waste against a souped up japanese air force, nor particularly vulnerable for the first several turns of the game. Keep in mind too that if japan builds bombers again on turn 2 (while landing turn 1 bombers in china) russia will get to see that as well and factor it into the decision on whether to buy the two aa’s.
I do think $10 is significant, and the SBR strategy at least forces that, so good for the strategy. but the builds are similarly inneficient given japan’s opportunity cost.
-
What costs Russia is not the 10 IPCs. It’s what they wasted the 10 IPCs on. They did not buy a fighter to give them better ability to trade territories. They did not buy tanks to reinforce territories and press into Europe with. They did not get infantry to soak damage. They bought worthless AA Guns that can be easily out maneuvered from the air at worst, captured and used against Russia at worst.
The idea is not to create units that make the enemy stronger. The idea is to out position and out maneuver the enemy. If you are spitting out AA Guns every round then you are shorting yourself units. With less units, the Axis will have to trade less territories. With the Axis taking your AA Guns with infantry and tanks, you have to risk sending more infantry and getting your fighters shot down by the AA Guns or sending your own tanks which just makes the situation worse. Russia cannot afford to trade a few tanks a round like Germany and Japan can.
Meanwhile, if Germany has 2 or 3 bombers, that means America is going to need more surface ships to defend their transports in the back and in front of their train. That’s going to cost the allies more money than they normally spend on ships. Perhaps it is only 2 destroyers, but that’s still 24 IPC they are not spending on equipment. Added to Japan’s SBR runs on W. USA and Russia spitting out worthless AA Guns (because they are not needed now) we have the following situation:
Germany and Japan Cost: 30 IPC to Japan. Germany’s bombers are still usable to trade territories in Russia while threatening the Atlantic.
Cost to Russia: 10 IPC for AA Guns + Potential losses of Fighters + Increased cost in ground units lost in trading.
Cost to England: Potentially 8 IPC if Germany SBRs them
Cost to America: 10 IPC in SBR damage + at least 24 IPC for destroyers to protect the transports landing units in the back so the forward fleet has something to transport into Africa/Europe/Asia
Net?
-30 Axis
-52 Allies and that’s not including the increased costs to Russia from lost armor and fighters that they otherwise would not have lost.To me, that’s a good investment. Anytime I can put a unit in the field of battle that returns 200% on investment is a win in my book.
-
while i think a better case could be made for your argument, that math is arbitrary and makes no sense.
-
you choose not to count the cost of the german bomber…. then proceed to count the benefits as if it could BOTH bomb germany and attack us shipping without ever dying.
-
you count 10ipc’s damage to us from western europe which as i’ve said is not even a feasible bombing target in the game due to distance. (it’s also a terrible waste of bombers – i get it, you can use them for combat. it’s just sub-optimal for japan).
-
as us, i wouldn’t buy 2 destroyers initially. i’d use one (of my initial 2) per two transports in eastern canadian sea zone, which should be a deterant to all but a 3-bomber attack. germany is the net loser if it risks 1-2 bombers against 2 transports and a destroyer. after an attack, the us can rebuild, but this goes back to point number 1 about counting the german cost…
-
-
You must not be reading what is said or looking at the board.
W. USA can be bombed from Hawaii with Japan’s bombers. Since Japan’s bombers are now trapped into being Hawaii, they cost the Axis money. I never said it was being bombed from W. Europe.
Russia’s AA Guns are a HUGE liability! And they cost money on top of it! That’s a double whammy.
America’s going to need surface ships to defend the transports. One surface ship is not going to cut it, not against 2 or 3 German bombers. So assuming you have 4 transports 1 destroyer that’s 44 IPC. It’s perfectly feasible to think that Germany could sink 3 of those transports at the cost of 1 bomber quite easily. Remember, they don’t have to sink your surface fleet, just your transports to set you two rounds back. So realistically, the only way to counter this is to have 2 or more destroyers present so you can be safe in your hopes to hit two or more bombers in the first round of combat.
The math is sound. You may not like it. But all of your counters to the Axis bomber strategy cost the allies significantly more than it costs the Axis.
By cost I mean units that are locked into only one function and that function does not work directly towards winning the game, but rather work to maintain the status quo. (Units you have to build or move to certain places that in a normal game you would not have to do.)
German bombers don’t COST in this because they are still fully functioning units in prosecuting the war in Russia in fact, they are a boon to Germany since now Germany can press one more space in without having to move any of her fighters.
Your AA Guns are a direct and very expensive cost to Russia. For one thing, no Russian player is going to build them in a normal game (and probably not in this case either). For another, they are easily captured which results in Russia having to send more IPC in units to liberate them or watch them get walked out of the way of the bombers, neither is a good scenario for Russia.
Top that off with additional costs to America to protect shipping efficiently (which what I mentioned was not attacking them AND SBRing England, it was THREATENING THEM AND SBRing England, there’s a significant difference). America can of course chose NOT to protect the transports, it will just cost them 4 transports a round instead.
Yes, there is a chance that the bombers will get shot down. There’s always a chance. It’s just highly unlikely to happen. Even you realize this when you said you want to have double AA Coverage along all avenues of approach to Moscow. If one AA Gun shot down enough bombers reliably, then you wouldn’t need the second gun!
What you discount is that all of your allied defenses are one shot things. They can’t pull double, triple or even quadruple duty like the Axis attack bombers can.
Axis: Bomb England/America instead of Russia
Axis: Trade longer distance territories allowing fighters to remain in the west longer
Axis: Threaten allied shipping further out in the Atlantic (which when coupled with the few submarines and other ships you have, is significant.)
Axis: Bomb RussiaUses: 4
Counter 1: Buy a dozen AA Guns and turtle.
Uses: 1Counter 2: Buy surface warships to defend your transports now in jeopardy.
Uses: 1Sorry, but all your counter strategies cost as much or more (in most cases at least double) and they lock your units far away where they are not attacking Europe. No matter how you slice that, the advantage is to the Axis. There’s only so many units and so many IPC you can dedicated to protecting yourself. Every IPC you dedicated to protecting something is one less IPC you are dedicating to winning the game.
The cute thing about this move is that the bombers are not used to protect Germany. They are used to threaten all the allies at once and will help Germany win the game no matter which way they are used. Can you say the same for your extra destroyers out in SZ 2 or SZ 8? Can you say the same for the AA Guns that Japan captures every round in Novosibirsk and Kazakh forcing Russia to send out tanks to liberate each round?
Imagine how devastated Russia would be if they had AA Guns in Kazakh and Novosibirsk because Japan foolishly put all three bombers in Sinkiang. Now, Japan takes BOTH AA Guns with an Artillery left in each place. Russia sends out 2 infantry, fighter to each and by some miracle, BOTH fighters are lost to AA Gun shots. What did those guns just cost Russia? What did they cost Japan?
You have to take these things into consideration! You can’t just assume that your AA Guns are going to take out the bombers. For one, it is mathematically incorrect, the odds are significantly on the side of the bombers, not the guns. For another, you have to look at what resources both sides have. Germany and Japan can easily dedicate a couple armor a round to taking your guns because they can count on the law of probability that eventually you will either lose a fighter to the guns trying to liberate them or you will fail to liberate them resulting in the Axis getting the chance to remove it.
PS: Attacking W. USA for 10 IPC a round is not infeasible. It is quite feasible really. 3 Bombers * 3.5 IPC in damage is 10.5 IPC so it is safe to assume you will actually do that much damage.
Coupled with most American players sending everything against Germany and abandoning the Pacific, your bomber bases in Hawaii should be quite safe from attack. (Leave an infantry or two there to discourage America from putting a bomber in W. USA to attack it if you need too.)
And with America losing a third of it’s income each round, those destroyers he has to buy to protect his transports from the German bombers just got significantly more expensive. 27 IPC does not stretch nearly as far as 37 IPC. (Assumes Hawaii is Japanese, China is Japanese and Sinkiang is Japanese, all safe assumptions AFAIK.)
Suggested Topics
