Question on Sea Base Movement

@nishav That is correct. Many people use the Mech from London to accomplish the same thing.

@rforelli
From the “Air Base”-unit characteristics, Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 25:

Increased Air Unit Range: When taking off from a friendly territory that has an operative air base, air units gain 1 additional point of movement range. At that point fighters and tactical bombers can move 5 spaces, and strategic bombers can move 7spaces. Note: Air units on carriers in a sea zone adjacent to a territory containing an air base don’t benefit from this additional movement range.

You should watch some of Adam’s Germany plans in League games.  He has some nefarious orders including bringing the fleet around into the Med to prevent subs from convoy raiding.  The small fleet is also sufficient to take Gibraltar on the journey there.  Other people use a limited Axis fleet to convoy raid the UK.

After G1, focus on taking Moscow or heading to the oilfields.  The time is ticking to get the Axis income close to the Allied income.  I have seen too many people lose as Axis because Germany gets in a fleet building competition with the United States.

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

Morning Knp.
The Italians had no inclination to fight the British and even less the Americans, when they joined the war.
There was also a massive class divide between Officers and the enlisted man. This made morale very low and did not help create a fighting force. Italians were happy to be left alone.
The Italian army was also a foot one. Hardly any units were motorised and that would prove a problem in the vast expanses of desert and the seesaw nature of the campaign.
The British were lucky when they attacked in Dec of 1940 as they had only had limited objectives. The advance was so uncontested, that they kept going until they had Benghazi and Tobruk.
Being Italian, I love to laugh at my WW2 army’s dismal performances and unwillingness to throw their lives away for someone else’s glory.
When the Italians switched sides, however, things got very bloody as civil war broke out amongst the Fascists and Communists. Many Italians proved they were not afraid of dying once they had a real cause and future in which they believed.
My dad’s dad was in Africa, Russia and later ran and hid from the Fascists in Tuscany.

@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.)

Historical Sealion or in game Sealion? If it’s the latter I should say it’s already been explained.

Thanks Krieghund.

Planing amphibious operations vs. the US-Player at the moment.  :-D