A few more ?s

@daggaz:

EXTRA BONUS PS:  We have an interesting houserule about the capture of an enemy capital.  The IPC’s from that capital are like a stash of gold.  They are heavy, and immobile (man, digital transfer of funds thru international banking cartels just DIDNT happen back then).  That said, if you take a capital, the IPC’s of that capital are in your hands, but they are stuck in the capital of origin.  You CANNOT spend them, until a turn where the capital is in your possession on the beginning of that turn, at which point those IPC’s are transferred to your general fund, to be spent anywhere. (It takes a full round to liberate enemy gold).  Even then, the captured capital only has limited production capabilities (ie, Moscow produces only 10 units) according to the normal rules.  If you take a capital, and the enemy retakes that capital on their next turn, the enemy also retakes their gold.  Note those IPC’s can only be spent on their next turn, provided they still own the capital.Â

So which money is lost when the surviving opponent’s heavy bombers do a stategic industrial bombing attack?

Hamar - i liked your thinking.  Still, i have to agree w/ SSG in that part of your strategy is a little rough.
Also if i’m Japan and building an IC on MAN (which i rarely do anymore), chances are i control enough of the board to move my Japan AA to the mainland.

I have to concur with the others who have posted.  A combined transport and infantry build for Japan on turn 1 is the way to go.  If Russia took Manchuria on round 1, and if the UK executed the “Kwangtung Maneuver”, the only place left for Japan to build is Southeast Asia.  While initially it MIGHT be safe (the US can take that factory using China and Sinkiang forces one time in 3, and later will threaten it with a southern island hoping fleet), it is too far from Russia to do any good, and forward progress against Russia proper is easilly blocked by Novosibirsk infantry units.  Japan HAS to focus on gaining IPC’s in round 1 in order to sustain a transport invasion of Russia through the back door (Manchuria to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia).  Also, as Japan builds a transport navy (protect by heavy naval forces that were NOT sacrificed against the US at Hawaii) the US has to garrison Alaska heavilly (that japanease transport fleet ferrying troops to Manchuria is a single move away from an all out invasion of Alaska too).  That reduces the number of US dollars that can be spent on the European war, allowing Germany to maintain the frontal assault on Russia that eventually leads to Japan taking Russia.  So for an opening move, Japan re-takes Manchuria, takes Australia, blasts the results of the Kwantung Maneuver (if executed) or takes China using air force and Kwantung infantry. If Japan still holds Manchuria, they assault Yakut and take it.  If the UK builds in India, that simply takes more pressure off Germany and allows THEM to take Russia, aided by the threat floating through the Siberian lands… too far from India for UK to do a darn thing about.  YAKUT is the key for Japan.  Take it and hold it, you have one territory with all of your west-marching forces to defend it from the Russians, and you force Russia to try to defend TWO territories against your massing forces.  The drain on Russia:  defending Evenk AND Novosibirsk plus holding Karelia and the Caucuses with an income of only 20 or so IPC’s is FATAL, REGARDLESS of UK and US support.  And with Russia gone, the Alllies WILL lose (economic victory is immediate on taking Russia, world domination only a few moves away)

At the same time, consider that the first-turn fighter gives you an “early” defensive bonus.

But the Allies do not need an early defensive purchase. If played right the Germans should not be able to take Karelia until turn 5 or 6 at the earliest, and this is without fighter purchases. So considering this longterm reality the shorterm is of no consequence. In my experience the Allies win by limiting/reducing Germany’s ipc level and then reducing their income. With this in mind I’d say a bomber or a carrier is always a better purchase because of their obvious uses.

Bravo my friend sounds good, this man is a master seconded only by my master offensives :wink: :wink:

Hard to say. 2 junior but equal players might always end up with an allied victory. 2 medium but equal players might end up with an axis win most of the time. 2 experts and equal end up with allied victories.

3rd edition helps allies more then axis IMHO.
RR and German rockets alone might be enough, if not give germany jet power (ftrs defend on a 5). Somebody at our group coined the term piranha for a German jet fighter. Couple of those in a stack of infantry adds some back bone! No rolling 4 times each always missing, they always take a bite!

BB

Russia is criticle to the game. However sending the US against Japan is risky. Japan’s navy can put up a good defense while Japan’s ground forces make inroads in Asia depleting Russian income. Life becomes easier for Germany if the US focus is on Japan. I feel sending the US to Europe or Africa is more efficient, making Germany fight on two fronts, keeping them away from Russia.

Ever heard of the old saying that it doesn’t matter who wins or losses, just whoever takes the most of a beating. I think that principle can be applied here. As for gearing up for the war, American industry just wasn’t fully mobilized. If you compare production rates of military arms of WWII vs. the Vietnam War (and the Vietnam War lasted how many heres), you’ll see the real story.