Can an Improved Mech Infantry be supported by a tank and artillery?

@barnee thanks heaps!

@thedesertfox @Tin-Can-of-the-Sea
You’re both right about ANZAC units. They have the best colour.

@bfreestone2002
Repairs take place during “Phase 1: Purchase & Repair Units”. It does not affect movement of the repaired unit in later combat and noncombat move phases in any way.

Regarding SZ 110, I got hosed one time on a UK scramble. Usually as Germany, I send 3 fighters, 3 Stukas, 1 bombers and sometimes 1 sub to SZ 110. Our UK player had gotten in the habit of not scrambling in order to save the RAF for future action.
Well, this one game I made the mistake of just assuming UK would not scramble. I sent 2 fighters, 2 Stukas and 1 bomber to SZ 110. The other fighter and Stuka I sent to kill the French fleet in SZ 93. Well, UK taught me a lesson. They scrambled and wiped out my planes. I didn’t even kill all the ships in the channel.
Never made that mistake again.

I agree with both Bold and Cow.

Bold is right: 99INF is not a viable bid to demonstrate anything. It does not take away the risks (at all!) against a top axis player.
I also agree partially with Cow (after some more study) about the USA. Cow feels the USA is outright bad. I feel that the USA is indeed off-balanced.
This is because A). Japan can take Calcutta and keep it untill ~J9 when it attacks Hawaii with a fleet/invasion force worth ~600TUV and B) this cannot be dodged by US DD blockers, since Germany can fly some STR to Japan to remove them.

In other words: the USA cannot block off Japan indefinately, attacking the IJN if it moves forward in order to get in range of Hawaii. Therefore the USA must defend with a fleet worth ~570TUV (considerably more than what is needed for an attack on a blocked-off IJN) to prevent a Pacific loss for the allies, which leaves the USA with no more than a ~100IPC investment in the Atlantic for the first 9 turns…

The charm of A&A just dropped from 10 to 3 points on a scale of 0 to 10 for me. The 3 points left are for playing against players who are not aware of this loophole, thus not forcing me to go KJF.

I admit that this is not spelling doom for the allies because they can still go KJF, playing the allies in Europe like Gamerman said in another thread, but I find it highly disappointing that a KJF is the only way to go for the allies against this Japanese exploit (of what I call a loophole).
I’m afraid the easiest way to fix this while keeping all other rules intact, is to correct/improve the current victory conditions (G40.2) in such a way that the USA regains the option of going Europe heavy. To a certain extend, ofc, because largely ignoring the Pacific should still be punishable with loosing the game.
Brainstorm: why not set the axis victory conditions to 13 Victory Cities total. Europe heavy allies can prevent the Euro-axis from getting >6VC but then Japan will take 6VC (Hawaii), totalling 12 for the Axis and the battle for that 13th VC still looks like a tough way with a LOT of options to go for both sides…

Ok. Combat move.

Mmmm, industrial complex in New Zealand is tasty for the Japanese. Mmmmm.

Really Anzac could use it occasionally. Sometimes I want to build four inf and a fighter.

I would abuse improved shipyards right off the bat. I would make sure that the USA had the only floating major navy in both oceans. No point of having an edge if you don’t abuse it. And Japan can’t get its cites if they have no fleet.