Let's play!

I’ve re-read the rules on violating neutrality…now this discussion makes sense!  Thanks.

@Linkon:

There are fools and greater fools.

You should look for some of the threads that actually garner discussion.  The threads that are immediately disputed indicate strategic errors by the original poster.

Strategic errors, or game rule errors, Such as…

@googie7745:

You will probably wipe both forces out, but if you have a fighter left, land it in Karelia to better defend it against the Russians.

You cannot land airplanes in newly taken over territory.

You should probably start playing with bids to help out the axis.  You seem like a pretty good player who is ready to move on.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what Russia does on R1 (straight up) the Allies are going to win the game.

For the sake of argument though, I’ll Retake Man (heavy), probably take Chi, and do a variation of Pearl Lite.

The Reason bids should be considered is here is a typical R1 turn

1)  Attack Ger sub with Rus sub (either win or chase off ger sub)
2)  Kill Ger ships in baltic (2 ftrs, 1 trn)
3)  Strafe/take Ukr
4)  Strafe/take Man (or just reinforce yak)

There is just too much damage you can do.  Russia is far to powerful when played right.  Hence the need for RR with a 9-12 bid or just a 21-24 bid game.

My take is that “Yes” the ship can still move through the Suez canal. The fact is that the naval battle HAD to happen first in order to allow for the landing of troops.

In my last game Japan took Russia and USA took Germany. At this point it was a stalemate. My opponent and I started opening up new fronts everywhere. The Pacific, Africa and Even Brazil. We started to buy Research roles. I was wondering what is your policies are when doing reseacrch.

I would probably suggest going against building an IC in Yakrut for Japan. It’s much more economical to just buy two transports instead. Usually when I set up an IC (India or Burma, maybe for both), it’s to produce ARM and not inf. I think that 6 ARM should be more than enough (if you factor in supporting inf) per Japan once it hits critical mass.

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27