US battleships

I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska.  I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50.  Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR.  Sorry.

@Woodstock:

@Gamer:

@Woodstock:

Thanks. Changes the German meditarrean situation quite a bit …

Not really.  The Allies have been given more fighters and fleet to compensate.  Notice the sub off Egypt is now a Destroyer?  Notice the Indian Ocean fleet?  And so on . . .

Yeah, I noticed the enlarged UK fleet, but I meant that the 2 hit kill applies to both offense and defense for the Battleship makes a difference.
The UK wasn’t attacking my Med fleet, as he thought “Well, he is weaker in attack then defense, so let him attack me.”…and I was holding off my attack on his Battleship for the same reason…

Well, it’s sort of obvious to us that have been playing Revised a while.  But when you think about it, why would the extra hit only apply to defense?  The extra hit is to reflect the fact the Battleship represents a MUCH larger set of surface ships than a destroyer, and that is true whether the fleet is attacking or defending.  And as for NOT attacking it, why on earth would Germany use the Med. fleet to attack, unless the likely result is annihilation of Allied fleet?  If you wait for the Germans to attack another fleet with the Med. fleet, you should be waiting quite a while in most cases.

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

Tim, pinch hitting for Krieghund quite well!

I have always used the Ho Chi Min trail stragety as the US also.  It takes a little longer to get things going but having a solid wall of troops cycling through the continent is a deterent.  And even if Japan still decides to attack and takes that territory, the US will have a force to be delt with in adjacent territories.

As Japan I think you would have better luck focusing mostly on mainland Asia and as a secondary objective running scrimishes on places like Alaska, Hawaii, New Zeland, Aus., and Brazil.

Taking these places under a scrimish mindset means you are trying to defelect US troops from going to Europe.  They will take back those territories and some times very quickly.  Don’t take them with the intention of holding them because you have far more to loose in this situation because you have to import the fight.

@Perry:

I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.

UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.

Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.

I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.

As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.

Where’s the unguarded territory if he blocked off the Baltic? What if there are no troops or very little troops in W. Europe? You may be infinitley efficient when you can bombard a territory, but when the territory doesn’t have many or any troops to bombard, or you are blocked, you are many turns behind in amassing the necessary troops to attack.

Sounds interesting! 8)