Sub question

the rules ensure that the TTs cant really do double duty that way (you can use them twice but its not faster) though it is fun to imagine bringing along an extra transport during the US cross to load up those brave, brave, no-combined arms Frenchies from North Africa.  Or brits.  The rules just make it too choppy to implement very well.

A much better exploit is

flying into the attack with fighters u moved 4
landing them planes on an allied carrier, then it moves 3
then it gets attacked, you help defend, it blows up, you move 1 more

you moved 8 spaces with a fighter and fought twice in 1 turn lol

My mistake was not sending my two move units to Romania the previous turn as Germany. I just played out turn 9 and US was able to stack Northern Italy. Italy is out of the game now, but on the other side of the board Japan is making 105, and he is bombing Russia with 5 bombers every turn. He has more than UK in the south and he can now start landing in Africa taking the money away from Russia and UK. I do agree that US is going to eventually take Germany, but could he do it before Moscow falls? Probably :/

It could have been worded better IMO.

Thanks for your answers they both helped!

Yes, I was referring to leaving from an island.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

all 3.  REALLY sure NO

It seems with 6 subs on the board, you could keep 2 off Canada and 4 off London. That means you would subtract 11 IPCs from the UK until the US entered the war, if UK does not build a DD in Canada.

You could keep London at around 18 IPCs until the US enters the war. However, I don’t think Germany can spare the money on sea units, since I believe they need to help Japan gather victory cities or face a long term loss of game. I also suspect that the US will have 2-3 DDs in their war fleet able to clear two of the convoy zones for UK.

Personally I would make air units over sea units, as you can then threaten fleets and land units especially if you need a quick extra “push” against Moscow early on.

You would discourage a navy build by UK until the US could arrive on scene.

In some Europe games, I did produce a couple of subs early on, but not in any global games. I found their life span to be brief unless they hid behind Denmark.

Yes, they border