Favorite nations

Perfect!
:-D

In this situation I generaly take my time building troops in the ratio of 1Bmb - 2Trn - 4Inf

I usualy drink several celibratory beers and when I have enough troops to take the island in one battle I go for it. In the mean time I strat bomb. I usualy don’t get in a hurry, just make sure you have some good tunes playing and the beer is flowing freely.

fair enough. Let’s say you pull the armor back, and toss fighters in? Or one arm, one ftr?
Also it’s not just the german ftr but also it’s armor(s). Plus stalling it for 2 turns (by forcing it to pull back instead of allowing it to build up).

I’m not sure I follow, how does hitting EEuro hurt Germany more than attacking Ukr. It has 1 more armor anyway, and you have more guys to throw in. Further against a good PE bid you’d likely be creating a deadzone in Karelia even with armor there, or I could stack Cauc to force you from Karelia on R2. Either way I don’t see why attacking EEuro is going to hurt Germany more than hitting Ukr would.

Depending on the bid of course, but interesting is

sub vs sub in AZO

2 ftr vs trn, sub in BAL
8/3 vs Ukr

and maybe 5/1 vs Man (only w/1 inf Kwa bid or less)
ncm the trn to NOR and Germany has a tough task.

Yes very much depending on the bid if you ask me. IMO no Africa bid should ever happen unless you are prepared to bid 2 guys into Manch. I assume an Africa bid as against a PE bid this would be extremely risky, and create a potential deadzone out of Karelia. So yes I’d say this would work against only the very worst of bids.

That’s the only reason I’d risk all my tanks in E Euro. At least I know I’ll have another round to build before an invasion. I don’t like it, but in an unRR, no bid game (ie playing by the printed rules) I could see the tactical advantage to taking Manch, E. Euro, Baltic Sea and the sea zone to the west of France with Russia followed by a Kwang attack by the UK.

But herein lies the problem in a no bid no RR game why would Russia need to ever worry about Karelia. I would also question why Russia would need to attack Manchuria as in a no bid game the Allies start with such an impressive advantage they don’t need to do much to win.

Vann Himself wrote:

I chose Japan because they are usually more flexible and as long as you hold asia, island hopping isn’t really a threat to your economy.

I have to disagree with that. Island hopping can devistate Japan. I’ve said this a couple of times and I’ll reiterate my points.

First, it puts a navy on Japan’s door step, and gives allied players another foothold for Asia. Not the biggest advantage but it helps a little.

Second, it is very easy for the UK to put an IC on Australia (even easier if WE is taken and the US is moving in on Germany, so your on the defencive in Europe) and grab at least two islands form the start. Since it’s difficult to reinforce islands effectivly, you usally only have to take out one inf. A ftr and 2 inf can usally handle this threat.

Third, it draws attention away from Asia. If Japan doesn’t reinforce their navy in the south pacific (esspecialy against an IC in Australia), they will wind up with a broken or, worse, no navy, which opens the door for invation. So, Japan is forced to spend money on a navy, taking money from the mainland, which is a plus as it slows the drive to Moscow. That could mean death for Germany right there.

Finally, if you take all the islands, you steal 8 IPCs from Japan every turn. That is VERY difficult to retake on mainland Asia, as the territories average around 2-3 each. So you need to take something like 3-4 territories just to make up for the loss. Plus it provides a nice boost for the Allied nation(s) that occupy the islands.

So, thats my two cents.

Oh, and I like Germany the best :D

Is a really bad idea assuming the Germans have built up a really big stack there.

never played europe or pacific. but it seems to me that they are both merely shrunken versions of the original just with more detail. the global conquest aspect of the original is quite appealing, plus the classic game seems like it would be more challenging than the others, since it has more opponents to worry about, as well as much larger fronts to concentrate on.

“Multi-National Force” & “Commander-in-Chief” rules were both scrapped for the 2nd-Edition. Forces of multiple nations in the same land territory or seazone may still defend together, but may no longer attack together.

Ozone27

I voted for UK. Here is my take on the countries.

Germany - Fun to be the aggressor, but really you are pretty much always confined to the same winning strategy. Plough east with Tanks and aircraft, and blitz through Africa. You don’t get much chance to be creative.

Russia - You don’t get to explore the map much. You are basically trying to get lucky in the West while doing enough to hold off Japan in the East.
Not much strategy either, just sit back and hope to get lucky or that your allies save your ass.

Japan - I find playing as Japan WAY too easy. As soon as you build a factory on the mainland you WILL take it. Pacific is really only a secondary concern. You won’t take U.S. until Russia is done, and you won’t get to Russia before Germany does. Really you just have to blast through India, China and Siberia then spend the rest of the game walking into empty territories.

U.S.A. - By the time you have finally mobillized the game is already decided. Of course it is always a challenge to try and change this, so U.S. is somewhat fun to play

U.K. - The best to play because you are the most important factor in the Allied effort. Russia turtleshells 75% of the time. U.S.A. takes too long to get in the game. Really your strategy with the U.K. is what decides the game. Because of the huge expanse of British territory, you can fight on multiple fronts all over the globe. In my opinion, playing U.K. gives you the most chance to be creative, and still have to watch your own ass.