Keeping Anzac under control.

@MM1940

Well done!

Yeah Yunnan keeps Burma Road almost always open since China can keep the five bucks coming in, the artillery buy just adds an advantage. It’s really hard to use China offensively against a Japanese player who knows what they are doing but in my games, I find Japan going after India by sea any ways.

@SouthsideCH:

As far as taking over friendly neutrals, why is Anzac not allowed to? Is this a error in the rulebook?
…
So it is an error of omission?

There is no exception for ANZAC regarding non-combat-moving into friendly neutrals.

What do you have in mind?

(ANZAC is not part of the Europe ruleset, so they are not listed in the Europe only rules. They are of course part of the Pacific (and Global) ruleset.)

Gallipoli is also an excellent Mel Gibson movie before Mel Gibson went nutso.  Great movie about a terrible operation.  I blame Churchill.

@Tolstoj:

It is possible for the Russians to attack Estern Poland, but you have to buy mech units and tanks, and perhaps a TB. Very curious to know how such a game would end, but I don’t think it would be favorable for the Russians to trade their army for a German army. Because unlike WW2, the Germans can make new ones…

ShadowHawk showed me many new (to me) and good tactical moves, so it was an interesting game to me.

Unfortunately I made too many mistakes with Japan on J3 to have a realistic game (lost many infantry because I forgot to use my figthers). Also I am not used to playing online, so it takes an hour to do one turn with Japan.

But I am practicing now… :D

Playing online is tough for me as well.  I need to see the whole board or I’m lost.

I only see a mutual annihilation as good for Russia if the US and UK are in Western Europe

Good question IKE.
That would be very true to the difficulty of playing allies: Giving up London or Egypt is the dilemma, what will the allies choose… I don’t know what’s best but I think both strategies can work.

Much depends on what happened UK1 and IT1 of course, so lets assume ‘Taranto’ happened (a rather standard move, especially with an allied bid). Without aid of the German luftwaffe (they will be massing against London), Italy cannot safely approach Egypt. Thats 1.

2: After Taranto and Germany pushing through for SL, London is very likely to fall but it is also very likely that it will be a pyrrhic victory for Germany. Russia will be a monster and the USA just needs to destroy the kriegsmarine.

If ‘Taranto’ did not happen UK1 I guess the situation does not change a lot if Uk2 still goes for it and stop Italy in the med… But in this case Uk2 also has the option to superdefend London, indeed possibly giving up Egypt in the long run (but only for a short amount of time if London survives).

I’ll not talk about the the possibility of the USA liberating London, as that also depends on what Japan is doing (and thus, how much investments the USA must make to prevent a pacific sudden death) but the USA should definately have enough ground and naval forces left to prevent Italy from breaking through.

Yes, I’d let them remain Dutch too.  One of the points of this house rule idea is to give the Dutch their own units, to rectify their rather odd status of having their own map roundel but no actual combat forces – so if the Dutch units were converted into plain old UK or ANZAC units when one of those countries lands in the DEI, it would spoil the fun.  And from a historical point of view, it’s likewise accurate to keep them Dutch: the Dutch components of ABDACOM remained Dutch during the DEI campaign, even though they were part of a coalition.

I also agree that the Dutch infantry units should gallantly fight and die where they stand.  As Marshall Mac Mahon famously said at Sevastopol in 1855, “J’y suis, j’y reste!” – here I am and here I will stay.

To put it another way, once the battle is over, you no longer have the option of retreating.