Australia IC

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?

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@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

@calvinhobbesliker:

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?

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

Well, 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.

@Make_It_Round:

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

Well, 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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

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

@allboxcars:

@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

To me that would have made more sense, but that’s not how things are. Ottawa is the VC, and is nestled deep in North America. I guess you could try for it after a successful sea lion (still having a navy), but you would be facing the US w/two major IC’s gunning for you. There is noway you could keep it for more then a round or so. For that matter, holding Quebec (Montreal) for any length of time would be next to impossible as well IMO, the US can toss to much at you.

I did just think of something though. Say you did do a successful sea lion and the axis navy is intact still w/several transports in the sz NW of England. Being that Quebec is the industrial center, Ontario may not have many units on it. You could send a small force through the Hudson to take Ontario (Ottawa), and send the bulk of your force to knock out Quebec in the same turn. Taking Quebec (depending on the map layout) should block the US from being able to retake Ontario (Ottawa) directly from E US. It could work if the axis need one more VC for the win I guess holding it past the US turn. The US player would either have to be sleeping, or have spent all his money in the Pacific to not see this coming though. You have to figure the US should be building a force somewhere in the Atlantic between E US and Iceland.

I don’t think the Axis need to invade North America to win. They need 14 out of 19 VC’s, so they can take everything except San Fran, Washington, London, Ottawa, and Moscow to win. But, they would need Hawaii, India, Egypt, and New South Wales

I know a number of people take issue with Ottawa as a VC.
Here’s my two cents:

@calvinhobbesliker:

I don’t think the Axis need to invade North America to win.

IMTO as long as this statement remains true, I don’t have a problem with VCs being in North America.

Conversely, if a successful Axis lodgement in North American does not spell Axis victory then I think the game needs fixing… most likely by putting VCs in North America.

Personally, I cannot imagine FDR and Churchill shrugging off the Nazis taking Montreal as long as Warsaw or Hong Kong was in Allied hands.

#593