Can Italy blitz through a pro-allied Nolrtheast Perisa

@JDOW also would you mind if I read your input on youtube?

@genken Might be cool to have a house rule that 1) 1, 2 or 3 the ship is damaged in a way that it moves at half but attacks full or 2) 4, 5, or 6 it is damaged in a what that it moves 2 spaces but attacks with a hit on 1 or 2 vs 4 normally.

I think the #1 lesson I learned on the forums and actually playing the game is this.

UK1 YOU ALWAYS BUILD: 6 INF + 1FTR or 9 INF on London.

If Germany is going to go ahead with sea lion make it a honest attempt. Defend London to the best of your ability on UK1 and UK2 and see what happens.

UK gets in trouble when they do not defend London to the max on their first 2 turns and goes off script. UK cannot afford to miscalculate the situation and be under manned on the first 2 turns on London and let Germany waltz in and take it.

UK2 Your purchase is a response to Germany. If they go Sea Lion build you MUST build more defense on the island. If they go with a Russia build and no TRS that is when you can build that minor IC somewhere and start looking at areas to annoy the Axis.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

If the US is forced to split it’s income their could come a time where it could haved saved the day at Hawaii or get much needed support to a victory city in Europe but it’s hands will have been tied because of polictial rules and the Axis will win.

To be honest I don’t really want to win that way.  I respect your position but I do disagree with it.  I would love to see the Axis made a little stronger but I am actually feel pretty comfortable with the USA staying as is for the most part.

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like the rule either, I think that so long as you have a factory you can earn and spend ipcs.  After you lose your last factory then you hold onto your unspent ipcs until you or an ally liberates one of your factories.  This seems more realistic to me, but I think the current rule is there more to prove that once your capital is captured you might as well surrender.

That’s an interesting idea.  So all nations would be treated like China and keep their unspent IPCs with hopes of one of their factories getting liberated, even if it’s not necessarily their capital.

Actually, there is a kind of historical precedent for having to capture the Axis capitals.  In the “Why We Fight” series, at the end of each film it shows a quote from the Secretary of War Henry Wallace that said “Victory can only be acheived by the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.”  So, as far as the game goes, if you have Japan surrounded but your Japan player doesn’t want to surrender, then you just have to keep pounding him with SBRs until you build up a big enough invasion force and take him out.

@Zallomallo:

Yes, an act of war by Japan on UK or ANZAC(and maybe France?) puts them at war with the US.

It does not put them at war.  It allows them to declare war.  There is a rather large distinction, as Japan can end the turn in seazones with US ships (or attack seazones with both US and UK/Anzac ships, ignoring the US ships) that are still friendly to them until the US declares war on the combat move of its next turn.

Japan declaring war on France has no impact whatsoever.  Japan can declare war on france and as long as they don’t attack FIC, they’ll continue to collect their National Objective.  Even if they do attack FIC, japan only loses their objective.  It does not permit the US to declare war.

@special:

People are playing to slow ;)

Agreed.

BUMP