UK Economy Question

@krieghund

Thank you for responding! Yes, America found this rule and lost a strategic bomber for it.

Hi Pherman. Like The Methuselah said, nothing is official.  That said, not many (no one) here would allow an Anzac Inf on Egypt. The accepted rule is that the territory needs to be owned by the nation placing the bid unit. Ultimately, is between the players to decide.

Our group has had this discussion many times. It seems unrealistic that a country would develop something that is not useful.  In one of our games Russia bought a non-disposable tech dice and actually rolled a 6 then rolled on the chart and got “War Bonds” which was cool for them but if you look at the list there are very few that Russia can benefit from.  Mostly depends if they are on the offensive.  If they are on the defensive then only “War Bonds” and “Increased Factory Production” seem to be worthwhile.  “Radar” would also be good but its on a separate chart with tech that would not benefit them.  Most would say that Russia should not even consider rolling on tech and I tend to agree unless they are on the offensive and have a massive economy.

If you dont like dice, you can always go Low Luck or No Luck.  However, I prefer ADS mainly because it means I get away scot free for years and years against AA Guns (i have the ultimate best record of surviving AA Guns and the absolute worst.  My worst record is 23 of 23 strategic bombers lost in a row (not all in one battle, I’da suicided if it was all in one battle!) and my current luck streak is still going with something like 50 misses in a row with AA Guns.)

I don’t mean to complicate things, but if you play with techs and get the “Advanced Artillery” tech, each artillery can boost 2 infantry, 2 mech infantry or one of each up to an attack value of 2.

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

Question answered thanks!

As I suspected.  Thanks!