The case for a single UK economy

@MarshmallowofWar that is correct.

@nubnumber1 just like a fighter unit in A&A is meant to represent many aircraft,think of a destroyer unit representing a group (flotilla I think is the term) of destroyers.Military history has many examples of small,yet determined, forces delaying the progress of larger forces. eg 101st airborne in Bastogne dec 1944

Ty soulfein! ;)

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

@Gargantua:

My heart always feels like it Jen.

As Japan I like it when Russia invades.  I strip Manchuria/Korea because if they invade I get extra money and if they dont invade I dont have to go back.  The downside is, I eventually have to invade Russia.

I would much rather crush India like an over-ripe grape early in the game, knock out the Australians and worry about fleet for a few rounds, once I feel secure against America (assuming they sent anything towards Europe so I have a chance to feel secure - in alpha 2 -) then I can dump 50 IPC a round into China/Russia.

So far, in Alpha 3, it seems I don’t have to worry too much about America, they are hobbled pretty well with the loss of an NO in the Pacific.  Could be better, but at least now my opponents are investing in the Atlantic, at least a little.

@ghr2:

US can DOW on the axis after Londong falls?
After US declares war collect income turn 3, it gets the bonus income from the NOs right?

Yes, the US can declare war on any or all Axis if London or any territory in North America is captured.  This is in the Alpha+2 rules, not OOB.
Yes, assuming the US hasn’t been brought into the war before round 3, they can declare war on any or all Axis on the collect income phase and immediately goes to a war footing which enables all the US national objectives.
@Piet:

Ok thanks alot.
So just for my understanding:  without any Japanese DOW to UK, ANZAC or US, the US may declare war in the collect income phase of US3.
With such a declaration, or if London/a North American territory is captured, the US may declare war on the combat move phase of the US turn following a Japanese DOW.
And an attack on Russia by any of  Japan/Germany/italy does not influence the US DOW right ?

Yes.
Yes.
Correct.  Any action against Russia does not affect the US and visa versa.

@Cmdr:

Accept, you’re down 4 defense units making the sacking of NSW easier.

The American fleet will help things out

@calvinhobbesliker:

Not too weak. OOB, they’re too strong with 28 planes and 3 transports. Both sides lost the same number of planes and transports, and Japan got 3 extra inf, while India got 2.

you find the Axis too strong in Global?  I like to reserve judgment this early on, but so far I’m finding the Axis quite challenging.

On topic, this strategy would leave Italy unmolested and invite a heavy India crush -  filling the coffers with a big bounty for Japan.  I’d be disinclined myself, but do let us know how it goes.