Yes, but isn’t the sub on the European side of the Suez Canal? Plus in my time of play the CD version of A&A, Germany can cross the Canal without controling both sides. Is this some sort of bug?
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much. 100 post in 36 days. That’s almost 3 post a day.
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-08 00:08 ]
Yes…its an obnoxious bug. And YES the UK SUB begins on the Mediterranean side of the Suez–in range of the Italian BB.
Ozone27
Thanks. At least now I know to handicap myself when trying to cross Canals in the CD-rom version.
Jondifool
Your strats are quite original. i’ve never seen anyone seriously surgesting to build a factory in egypt befor, and seldom surgesting to build factory in africa at all.
the way you say you want to counter egypt sounds weird to me. India is a very vital country in the game, you want to stagnate japans progress in asia, so abandoning india is the wrong way to go.
When i play germany, i send two inf to libya G1, and move the original two inf down to French Africa, and the armor to West africa, and attack Egypt G2, cuz by then i will have gotten rid of british-navy presense in the mediterranien. And aid the egypt attack with a fighter.
Deathflame
-=something funny=-
[ This Message was edited by: Deathflame on 2002-03-11 01:36 ]
Why does Great Britain have to worry about taking back Africa and investing tons of IPC’s into it? The US can throw many more forces into Africa on turn two, more so than any IC that Great Britain purchases. Let the US handle Africa.
Agreed. Africa (much like in the war) has to be taken back by America. Britain’s main role is turning the pressure up on Germany and helping USSR.
What I like to do with Great Britain is to build a large bomber fleet to cripple Germany economically and to build a large transport fleet to funnel troops into Karelia.
Shouldn’t the bomber fleet be reserved for USA? I mean once you get into the 2-3 rounds, UK probably has the lowest income in the game. So you’ll need every single IPC for infantry. USA (for the the most) investments are secure. But that’s just my opinion.
Maybe I was exaggerating about a bomber fleet with Great Britain, but I think Great Britain should assist the US in bombing out Germany. I like to have two bombers with GB and use them until they have all succumbed to AA fire.
Just think of it, three to four straight turns of the US and GB bombing out Germany. This will have very good results for the Allies. It also depends if GB purchases an IC in India; then it would be hard to allocate funds for a bomber “fleet” when you are also sending troops to Karelia and India.
there is no question that germany HAS to take egypt turn one. as germany, i can take egypt, and destroy the american transport and entire british fleet (besides the sub and transport east of arabia.)
by turn two germany has to be ready for a full out attack on karelia/and or caucasus.
i always find it essential to take egypt.
On 2002-03-12 10:12, Candyman67 wrote:
I like to have two bombers with GB and use them until they have all succumbed to AA fire.
Just think of it, three to four straight turns of the US and GB bombing out Germany. This will have very good results for the Allies.
As a long-time Germany fan, I can attest that this tactic, while somewhat risky, can take the wind out of Germany’s sails right quick when it works…
Ozone27
Thanks Ozone27. I was playing this strategy out on the CD version of A&A and I attacked with two British bombers. Both were shot down by AA fire on the first attack. This shows the risk of such a tactic and shows how the AA guns are all messed up in the game. But this isolated incident should not hurt its tactical luster and possibility.
