MOVED: Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics in Axis and Allies

Just to clarify….the OP is referring to the AE gambit in low luck.  So he’s not really risking much by taking one less fig to UKR…he will still take it 100% but just with higher than av. losses.

It’s difficult to judge the efficacy of the gambit because whether it works or not depends on dice and the German player’s reaction.  If Germany ends up skipping SZ2…then it worked.  Or if Germany fails to actually take Egy, it worked.  The main risk is if Germany goes to both 2 and Egy and succeeds…  On the other hand, sometimes Germany will go to both 2 and Egy and get diced up…even 2 is not a sure thing in low luck because of the Russian sub.

I have always seen it like this:if the axis keeps his combined airforce in WEu,the combined allies should be landing through SZ4.If axis has the airforce in EEu,the allies should go in from SZ3-Nor.In both cases the allies can keep both a steady flow to Europe and slowly reinforce the fleet,away from danger,till it can move towards SZ5.

sorry we quit because were gonna try to play a forum game

That CAP rule in good old Pacific always remained a mystery to me. As far as I remember you can only use airplanes that didn’t take part in any combat. Now who would let any airplane sitting around doing nothing in combat ?  Japan not using airplanes in her attacks ?  That’s why I never used CAP, not once.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

The entire basis of the changes to North America in 1942 is to “fix” the ease of conquering North America in previous versions, which in terms of historical accuracy should be nearly impossible for Japan to do.  The above suggestions are the best way to go for Japan in the current game, however.

Fuck that. Japan should break out of the Soviet Union into Alaska and base them self there fight with might for West Canada then take West US