Question regarding loading allied land units onto allied transports

@The-Janus

Yeah, tactical bombers are completely useless to attack facilities, but I think it’s historically accurate, since most strategic bombing was done by what would be considered strategic bombers.

Generally, I buy way more fighters than tactical bombers. This is mainly because in combat, if there’s only 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber, I usually take the fighter first (and I try hard to maintain at a minimum a 1 to 1 fighter to tactical bomber ratio), resulting in the need of replacements.

However, I usually like 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber on carriers, which is where I make the bulk of tactical bomber purchases.

Tactical bombers are generally less useful on land (because land units are more cost effective and it’s not that easy to find a battle where their bonus can be activated and is big/important enough to necessitate using air units), while at sea they’re competitive.

AndrewAAGamer’s Global 1940 principles explains it well.

That is a lot of resource being diverted from ground troops. The war with Russia is won on land.

By the time you have bought a major IC, an AB, a bunch of destroyers and some TTs, you have spent 80-90 ipcs? That is a lot of ground units lost.

Plus those TTs and destroyers are stuck in the Black Sea and redundant in a few turns time - unless you attack the strict neutrals.

The problem is the US won’t be able to do anything with those transports off Gibraltar because the axis will be able to counter attack the allied ground forces almost anywhere they land. Not only that if you move to land in say Southern France, now your transports are woefully out of position. Also Russia just gets absolutely creamed in this version by Germany and Italy’s can opening ability. You need to have US send a steady stream of 18 ground a turn into Europe. That is 9 transports off Gib landing in Spain, and 9 transports off Eastern US getting ready to pick up the land units for the next turn. Good players won’t let you land in a beneficial spot for the allies without significant loss of tempo from moving your transports and fleet way out of position.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28502.0

@daffy2war:

The suez and Panama canals have different sea zone #'s on either side of them but no white border seperating them, does this count as a free move through the canal?

The canal itself is not a space, but the two seazones are different and it does take 1 movement point to move from 98 to 81 and vice versa.

@Frontovik:

@special:

@Frontovik:

So US is down for 4 rounds. afterwards, what territory should be their main goal? i used to assault normandy or south-france, because of the IC’s. Also thought of aiming at italians, who can break through egypt now. But then russians are hard pressed.
perhaps they should land together with british in norway?

the turn sequence of Alpha 3 is ideal for attacking with USA and reinforcing with UK INFs and FIGs

edit: for me Africa is first priority (UK IPC’s + securing a front and Egypt, a VC), when that is settled i prefer to aim at Norway (NO bonus for Germany and a relatively safe spot to land, AND of course a place where USA can build an IC)

by the time africa is decently secured, russia has fallen…
(atleast alpha 2)

That can happen, but even so, as long as Axis don’t capture either Cairo or London they haven’t won.

Also i said first priority, not only priority ;)

Of course Allies need to be turning the tide by now on the other side of the map.

So in the manual it states that defending carriers planes are considered to be defending in the air.  It also states that units trapped on a damaged carrier cannot participate.  I was always under the assumption that when a sub attacks a loaded carrier that… 1) if it only scores one hit and damages carrier then the planes are trapped until it can get back to a friendly naval base 2) If it scores two hits then carrier and all cargo are lost since they don’t participate in battle against subs w/o a destroyer present.  If this is not the case then it seems to me that there is no way for cargo to get trapped on a carrier?

Heh.

Seems like a fair trade-off then.  :lol: