but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.
German IC's
-
Too bad there’s not a convoy zone there too (Black Sea). You could really cost Russia $ with a sub.
-
Actually, the one who owns the black sea can threathen alot of territories:
Caucasus, Rostov, Ukraine, Bessarabia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece (!) and ofcourse Turkey.
Imagine a Soviet factory in Caucasus, pushing out sone ships into the black sea. They can threathen many German areas behind the front. Ofcourse the Luftwaffe can deal with this fleet, but that takes resources away.
On the other side, more likely, Germany can put some transports in the water here, and “jump” behind Soviet lines.
Perhaps to creative, but still - what fun!
-
Couldn’t Russia just attack that sub in the Black Sea with fighters? I thought fighters get one attack before the sub can submerge.
Depending on the dice, really Russia would be destroying 6 German IPC’s a turn.
Only in Classic and Revised (ugh) can a plane attack a sub without a destroyer.
Ah okay, I knew I wasn’t crazy. I’ve been playing by the Revised rules. Guess I should have read the Pacific rule book a little closer.
Personally I’m inclined to think that a Squadern of fighters/naval bombers could potentially eliminate a pack of U-boats. Subs can’t stay submerged forever and have to come up, fighters could get a limited chance to drop a torpedo bomb.
Maybe a house rule could be Fighters attack at a 1 or 2 against subs and only get one roll of the dice.
Nah, the subs need the defense. The problem is in these games that fighters from the UK or USA can reach half way acrross the atlantic (which is fine for game reasons, but the subs needed a balance). UK has a lot of slow turns which would spell the end for the helpless subs. It’s why no one buys them in AAC or AAR. The (ugh) was because a lot of people tried to tell Mike Selinker this (he said so in his commentaries) but the rule change still happened. The shore bombardment rules took a step backward in that game, too. And if you play that game with national advantages the USA can get heavy bombers that can’t be hit by AA guns. And then there were the skinny panthers…see you got me started on AAR. I’m gonna stop now and simply say I’m glad AA42 came along so quickly, it shows someone was paying attention.
-
Ah okay, I knew I wasn’t crazy. I’ve been playing by the Revised rules. Guess I should have read the Pacific rule book a little closer.
This might explain why in that other thread you didn’t understand why the transports were left at the end of a battle? I hope you’re also aware that transports cannot be selected as casualties until all other units are destroyed. So what used to be fodder in Revised naval battles must now be protected to the last.
-
Upon futher reflection on the map, I could see a major IC purchase for Romania being worth its weight in gold. Buying mainly mechs from it, then moving to Ukraine with a small force of Italians will allow you to use the classic can opener threat from AA50. Could be a good buy on G2 with the spare funds, or even on G1 if you really wanted to for a strong push on Russia G3.