How often do you purchase new AAA?

@krieghund

Thank you for responding! Yes, America found this rule and lost a strategic bomber for it.

If they J1, then I would suggest buying an extra carrier and having these guys hang out with the USA, making the main fleet much less vulnerable to a pre-emptive attack. With a sub or two, and a tac, the ANZAC forces can usually mop up the Japanese fleet if it survives an initial attack by the US.

If they dont, then your planes can land on java, usually, they find a good way to cross, and at least as far as the Japanese TTs are concerned, you can screen those out (even if they have an NB)

The idea of sending the 6 planes to moscow, however, denies you alot of other milestones in the game; without the grey and tan planes in theatre, Bombay is easy to take, and if not, Sydney will be. Players who are not cautious about building reserves with ANZAC can easily find both capitals under threat, esp. once Japan can use Malaya’s base. Whichever one you defend, they attack the other (now that you can’t cross back). If you dont defend either, they can take both.

Another fine plan is to marry the UK air force from India with the one from the Med, assuming that one survives. That roving force can do alot to wreck the Axis, or it can defend the factories in the core area (persia, Iraq–the axis mundi of the board. pun intended).

No matter what you do, its still more than one turn from India to Moscow, and this is very intentional on the part of the game designers. At that juncture in the game, the areas around Moscow are under threat, so you can’t land planes alone anywhere but moscow.

Sending all your auxiliary planes from the minor allies to rescue Moscow will probably save it, but you’ll lose the game when the Japanese dominate that board, or the Italians/Germans take Africa and the 2$ Russian zones. For all these reasons, I prefer to leave most of those planes nearer to where they start, using them to tear Japan apart, rather than sending them on a long range adventure that prevents them from attacking and expressing threat. If Japan is threatened by the USA, there are plenty of times that they have to weaken their westward push, and at that point, UK planes can join whatever Russian stacks are still fighting, once you see the outcome (save Bombay, we hope).

I’ve played third reich. There is both an 80s version, and a 90s version of that game. They are quite different. However, it is alot simpler and smaller than WiF. I am currently playing a game called Scorched Earth, Urals Mod in the Europa System. This game has baseunits being divisions and regiments. It playes the entire war on the eastern front. Each space is a hexagon at about 25 km accross. you usualle have about 3000 pieces on the map at any given time, when only playing the eastern front. If you play once a week, you will actually use like 8 years to play the 4 years from 41 to the end of 45.

Even better, once your fleet stages to 92, if the US is at war, they have no choice but to prepare to be attacked.  That isn’t necessarily a good direction to go for the Axis (bc they can kill your fleet pretty easily if you invade from that direction), but it forces the US to place at least something there to stop you, and this is especially good if they did the heavy Pacific buys on US 1 and 2 because they may have as little as one combat ship, one transport, and a few men defending Washington.  They are hiding behind that peace–however the only way you could actually deceive them might be if Germany was not at war on G3, but Japan then declared war on J3.    Nonetheless, any competent player would still recognize the threat of being at war in the atlantic though the US is often not prepared for the Atlantic side of the war to begin.

Like the Sealowe thing, its better to threaten it then it is to actually try and execute this plan because the Allies still have to prepare for anything that you could potentially do, whether you have the odds to do it or not.

As a side note, I think it is really interesting that at the early war conferences, the US agreed with UK USSR that the Germans were the greater threat, and all agreed in principle that they would focus the majority of their economic power against the European Axis first.  But, post war analysis has shown that (probably because of the difficulty of attacking occupied Europe without overwhelming force, but also possibly tending to kill the weaker dragon first/getting revenge) the large majority of the US effort up until Normandy was actually directed at Japan.

1. No.
2. Yes.

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense

cant wait for something like this to come out

In our house rules we let TAC bombers choose a target at -1 on the dice roll. He can chose to do so.

Cruisers defending can force their hit on an opponents aircraft (instead of, say, a hit on a battleship).