German additional units?

@LewisClark The UK is split into two economies, not two powers. The UK player, if I understand your predicament correctly, can still move ALL their pieces on both sides of the board. They simply cannot purchase/collect income on the Europe side. There is no Europe/Pacific control of the pieces as all UK pieces are moved at the same time since they share a turn.

No one collects the income until someone controls it. Normally if the ping pong move is used, Italy will then attack it.

Thank you for your input and play tests. Thinking for the money I might just drop troops and planes and start marching lol. If I could just get a few tanks behind Russia or into the middle east it would make for some entertainment.

@cyanight:

That might be the reason Harris designed it so the Flying Tigers stay in the mainland of China. If Hainan was labeled a Chinese territory then the whole rule on transports could become an issue as well as the Flying Tiger being able to attack units in seazones. The way the game is setup the plane is penned inside of China with the exception of Burma and Kwangtung.And if the Chinese could load onto transports it would be easy to use them with USA since their turns are back to back.

Good theory – that may very well be the explanation.  I’d always wondered why Hainan was incorrectly represented on the game map (from the point of view of which territories were Chinese when Japan started conquering them in 1931).  Formosa and Korea I could understand, since China ceded Formosa to Japan under the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki and recognized Korean independence (which proved to be short-lived, since the Russians and the Japanese both had territorial ambitions there) under the same treaty.

Thank you for analyzing that statement for me. Odds favor a scramble, but my experience with it is okay. My decision depends on my mood and what I feel like doing. :)

When I am germany I throw that battleship. I don’t want to lose fighters, I will lose a battleship.  In which case the uk scramble odds are on average less than 1 fighter for 1 fighter… the battleship UK gets to kill anyway. So yeah I like that better.

@ozimek1:

I realize that the AA guns are more effective when definding in the west against Allied “liberation” attempts. The big question is whether the tempo gain of bringing them east is worth it, and ultimately more efficient.

What I mean is: Yes, an AA-gun is better at defending a stationary stack than advancing with the aim of possibly taking some very random pot-shots at enemy planes. That is pretty obvious. � BUT they happen to start on the board in round one, and they typically won’t be needed in the west for the first several rounds. Bringing them east from the beginning will add some momentum to Barbarossa, but at the cost of a less attractive puchase mix during the mid-game if they are to be replaced by newly purchased AA-guns or their equivalent in infantry. Is the boost worth that downside?

There’s no yes or no answer to that.  Even on G1, where I move the aa guns depends on what went down on G1.  I’ll still be making those choices on G2-G3, depending on how the game is playing out.  The aa guns in the East have limited utility because they have no attack value–their utility is to lessen Russia’s odds of a successful counter-attack.  Whether Germany needs them out there depends on what Germany and Russia are doing.

I would avoid buying new aa guns mid-game as Germany.  With that in mind, I’d keep half the aa guns back, barring exceptional circumstances.  There’s the possibility of moving east until G3, and then turning back, in time to protect Berlin.

Darn it - someone has correctly pointed out that the bombers in central US could hit z109 but they could not hit z110!

So I recalculated a couple of these and adding 1 carrier with 2 fighters landed on it gets the odds of an Allies win down from 100% to 70.2%; adding 2 carriers with 3 fig and 1 tac gets it down to 7.1%.  So it seems that 2 carriers would probably do the job most of the time, but that’s still an awful lot for Germany to spend.

Apologies for my oversight.

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.