@panther thanks for the quick reply. I was referring to 1940 Pacific SE. You are absolutely correct though. The US starts off as a Major IC on the original box setup. I have a different organizer now. It only has the global setup custom printout on it. Thanks.
Australia IC
-
@Dylan:
but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
As Calvin said, they would most likely reinforce US OR UK units on Chinese tt. I don’t like to put units on the Asian coast line to often, but I will to cost Jap $ or pester them. Jap can usually bombard the crap out of you on the coast w/min ground units (amphib), along w/its air power to wipe you out. If US has naval superiority off coast of Asia (or can counter the Jap fleet), then hell yea have china take the coast. Maybe Jap will take a gamble and go for it, leaving its self vulnerable.
-
@WILD:
@Dylan:
but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
As Calvin said, they would most likely reinforce US OR UK units on Chinese tt. I don’t like to put units on the Asian coast line to often, but I will to cost Jap $ or pester them. Jap can usually bombard the crap out of you on the coast w/min ground units (amphib), along w/its air power to wipe you out. If US has naval superiority off coast of Asia (or can counter the Jap fleet), then hell yea have china take the coast. Maybe Jap will take a gamble and go for it, leaving its self vulnerable.
But for an industry in Korea, they would need to get through the Japanese navy, which must be now crippled, and they can not parashoot down, so I do not see why not.
-
@Dylan:
@WILD:
@Dylan:
but what would you do with China territories.
You would have no choice but to liberate them (China). US can’t collect the $, and can’t build an IC on Chinese land. You surly don’t want Jap to keep them and collect income. As you res-erect China they get to buy inf again yippee :lol:
Do those Infantry just guard the coastline?
But for an industry in Korea, they would need to get through the Japanese navy, which must be now crippled, and they can not parashoot down, so I do not see why not.
You can’t talk about Chinese and Korea, because the Chinese can’t go to Korea. The only tt China can go in besides tt w/Chines star is Burma & Kwangtung.
A US attempt at Korea is rather risky, even if Jap is going all out on a UK crunch, and doesn’t leave much behind. Jap will also normally cock block you in sz 16 w/dd, so you may not be able to pull it off early in games. Even if you manage to get to Korea (early in games), the Jap air can come back in a turn or so. If they do, or split it up, you may be able to delay India crush, but again Korea is rather risky IMO.
I have had more success moving US though the Aussie conveyor belt. At least you get some support w/Anz, to help def US fleet (save $ and buy Anz carrier). You can 1-2 (sometimes 3 punch w/UK air) the Jap fleet. Keep in mind that allies not only def together, but because of turn order can also more or less attack together now that Jap BB’s and carriers can’t auto fix between allied turns.
-
@Dylan:
@Dylan:
@WILD:
No I was talking about Dutch New Guinea, where either Japan or US in the right circumstances could build a minor IC if it was valued at 2 ipc.
Edit:
Right now the only options the US has to build an IC is Alaska, Mexico (not much help), Korea, and FIC in Pac.Korea? Thats Japanese, they would need to knock out the Japanese navy, then unload and try to hold it from Japanese forces in Asia.
Yes, they would.
Also, the US can build factories in Hong Kong and Singapore if Calcutta is Japanese
True, but I will most likely regret posting this, but why, Calcutta isn
t Indias capital.Like Sydney being more important than Canberra, Calcutta is more important than Delhi
Then why did they put Ottawa in over Toronto or even Montreal?
-
You know that’s a good question. If indeed each province in Canada is represented (as it seems to be by the map posted), Ottawa, (or Toronto) Ontario could be tough for the Euro axis to get. You would have to take Quebec first, or take Ontario via the Hudson bay (depending on the sz’s). If the victory city was Montreal (Quebec) then the axis would be able to come in from different ways because Quebec appears to have multiple sz. I think Ontario is more protected then Quebec, and that VC (Ottawa) will be rather difficult to get compared to a VC in Quebec.
-
@WILD:
You know that’s a good question. If indeed each province in Canada is represented (as it seems to be by the map posted), Ottawa, (or Toronto) Ontario could be tough for the Euro axis to get. You would have to take Quebec first, or take Ontario via the Hudson bay (depending on the sz’s). If the victory city was Montreal (Quebec) then the axis would be able to come in from different ways because Quebec appears to have multiple sz. I think Ontario is more protected then Quebec, and that VC (Ottawa) will be rather difficult to get compared to a VC in Quebec.
I think I’m reading this wrong, but it sounds like your saying Montreal is the city, because it is Ottawa.
-
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
-
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
-
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
If they do they deserve a bitch slap
-
@Dylan:
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
If they do they deserve a b**** slap
Why? Ottawa borders both
-
@Dylan:
@WILD:
No, I know Ottawa (Ontario) is the VC. I was just saying that to me Montreal (Quebec) may have been a more achievable target for the axis to get. Ottawa is more inland, and looks like you would have to go through Quebec, the Hudson Bay or E US to get to it (unless Jap makes the long trek from W Canada). To me it would make more sense to put the VC in Quebec (Montreal) where the Canadian IC will be. In AA50 Quebec & Ontario was in the same tt. Now from what I can see from the pictures of the maps posted they are separate.
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
If they do they deserve a b**** slap
Why? Ottawa borders both
But it’s in Ontario, it’s like if they put all the states in and put it in Maryland!
-
They may put Ottawa in Quebec. Isn’t it its own territory(like DC) that borders both provinces?
No it isn’t its own territory like DC. Ottawa is part of Ontario. Across the river is Gatineau (formerly Hull).
And while capturing Montreal would be a major blow to the Allies, I think Ottawa would be far more grave and better warrant VC-status if any Canadian City is to have it.
#548
-
I was talking more about for game play. The Canadian minor IC will be in Quebec. It will most likely come w/AB & NB too. Seems like that alone is showing where the important tt is in Canada as far as game play goes. Ontario is the politically correct capital, but if you capture Quebec, you shut down Canada’s ability to contribute. Putting the VC in Ontario (Ottawa), just gives the allies an advantage. The Euro axis would have to first take Quebec (a difficult task in itself), then push on to Ontario. This would be plenty of time for the US to react from E US to block, or counter attack, making it nearly impossible IMO.
We don’t normally play w/VC. Sometimes we track them for the hell of it. We normally just call a game when the writing is on the wall. I think it would be cool if each VC was worth like 2 bonus ipc’s. They would be like an extra NO bonus. That way they would have importance even if you didn’t play w/VC conditions. Some of the NO’s are tied to VC now. In P40 Jap gets a 5 ipc bonus for holding either Calcutta, Honolulu, or Sidney (if you have one or all three you get paid the same). If each were worth 2 ipc’s you would get more money as you take more cities. Manila is worth 5 ipc’s to the US, but not any bonus to Jap, why? In AA50 Germany gets a 5 ipc bonus for Leningrad, or Stalingrad. You wouldn’t have to make up NO bonuses to include them if all VC’s were simply worth 2 ipc’s. Larry said their will be fewer NO bonuses in the global game, so if all VC were worth 2 ipc, their would be more $ available. If you capture someones capital, you would get 2 extra bucks to boot.
-
@WILD:
I was talking more about for game play. The Canadian minor IC will be in Quebec. It will most likely come w/AB & NB too. Seems like that alone is showing where the important tt is in Canada as far as game play goes. Ontario is the politically correct capital, but if you capture Quebec, you shut down Canada’s ability to contribute. Putting the VC in Ontario (Ottawa), just gives the allies an advantage. The Euro axis would have to first take Quebec (a difficult task in itself), then push on to Ontario. This would be plenty of time for the US to react from E US to block, or counter attack, making it nearly impossible IMO.
We don’t normally play w/VC. Sometimes we track them for the hell of it. We normally just call a game when the writing is on the wall. I think it would be cool if each VC was worth like 2 bonus ipc’s. They would be like an extra NO bonus. That way they would have importance even if you didn’t play w/VC conditions. Some of the NO’s are tied to VC now. In P40 Jap gets a 5 ipc bonus for holding either Calcutta, Honolulu, or Sidney (if you have one or all three you get paid the same). If each were worth 2 ipc’s you would get more money as you take more cities. Manila is worth 5 ipc’s to the US, but not any bonus to Jap, why? In AA50 Germany gets a 5 ipc bonus for Leningrad, or Stalingrad. You wouldn’t have to make up NO bonuses to include them if all VC’s were simply worth 2 ipc’s. Larry said their will be fewer NO bonuses in the global game, so if all VC were worth 2 ipc, their would be more $ available. If you capture someones capital, you would get 2 extra bucks to boot.
Actually, for the Hawaii, India, NSW Japanese NO, they get 5 for each one they have
-
Has anyone tried taking Queensland on J1, and then building an Axis factory there on J2?
Just take your SZ 33 carrier planes off as casualties–if necessary–and keep both infantry (Caroline Islands and Palau) alive to hold the territory. Reinforce with surviving land units from J1 Phillipines invasion and/or assorted fighters to hold it on J2, until it can start producing its own units.
I pulled this off in my last game (against an amateur, admittedly), and was able to lock ANZAC out of the game more or less completely from that point on… However, he didn’t counterattack my land units with the New Zealand fighters, and instead took potshots at my navy, which he considered to be more important. Without this mistake having been made, it could have been tougher for me, but even if he’d done that, I think that by J3 or J4 the same result could have been obtained.
Thoughts?
-
I don’t think it works. You have 2 inf, ftr, tac, BB bombardment vs 2 inf, art, ftr
Japan has attack punch of 13, so they get 2 hits
ANZAC has 10, so they get 2 hits
Japan kills inf, ftr; anzac kills 2 inf
Now it’s inf, tac vs inf ftr. If both get a hit, It’ll be inf vs ftr -
I don’t think it works. You have 2 inf, ftr, tac, BB bombardment vs 2 inf, art, ftr
Japan has attack punch of 13, so they get 2 hits
ANZAC has 10, so they get 2 hits
Japan kills inf, ftr; anzac kills 2 inf
Now it’s inf, tac vs inf ftr. If both get a hit, It’ll be inf vs ftrWell, it is a dice game, after all. Sometimes the throws go your way, even when they’re marginally stacked against your favour. But even if you don’t get Queensland J1, I still think it’s worth hitting and building an IC on as Japan, in order to knock the Aussies out of the game permanently. So if ANZAC spend all their IPCs building an IC there instead of bulking up their defences, that just helps the Axis war effort, IMO.
-
I don’t think it works. You have 2 inf, ftr, tac, BB bombardment vs 2 inf, art, ftr
Japan has attack punch of 13, so they get 2 hits
ANZAC has 10, so they get 2 hits
Japan kills inf, ftr; anzac kills 2 inf
Now it’s inf, tac vs inf ftr. If both get a hit, It’ll be inf vs ftrWell, it is a dice game, after all. Sometimes the throws go your way, even when they’re marginally stacked against your favour. But even if you don’t get Queensland J1, I still think it’s worth hitting and building an IC on as Japan, in order to knock the Aussies out of the game permanently. So if ANZAC spend all their IPCs building an IC there instead of bulking up their defences, that just helps the Axis war effort, IMO.
I’m not advocating ANZAC building an IC there. Buildingg one there as Japan is questionable, since the US/ANZAC can probably retake it unless Japan is fully focused on it.
-
Actually, for the Hawaii, India, NSW Japanese NO, they get 5 for each one they have
Yea but the 3 VC I talked about are in those tt, so it boils down to the same thing.
-
@WILD:
I was talking more about for game play. The Canadian minor IC will be in Quebec. It will most likely come w/AB & NB too. Seems like that alone is showing where the important tt is in Canada as far as game play goes. Ontario is the politically correct capital, but if you capture Quebec, you shut down Canada’s ability to contribute. Putting the VC in Ontario (Ottawa), just gives the allies an advantage. The Euro axis would have to first take Quebec (a difficult task in itself), then push on to Ontario. This would be plenty of time for the US to react from E US to block, or counter attack, making it nearly impossible IMO.
Well then wouldn’t it be better to just make Montreal the VC. Rather than move a nation’s capital to the wrong place.
#576
Suggested Topics
