New naval base defence ability

Hi
I am playing Axis and Allies 1941 with some home rules and I have some questions about what strats I could use to gain an advantage over the Allies. I am playing Germany and Japan against the Allies. The home rules we have are that tanks can blitz through occupied territory. for instance attack an occupied territory then blitz and attack a new space right next to the one they just captured and attack the units inside that space. Please tell me your thoughts on this I know that it is really overpowered but we have one more, bombers can, instead of bombing, pick up one man and drop him in a territory as a paratrooper so you can capture those spaces with nobody on them. We also added bombardment by only battleships, hit on a 4 or less.

So first German turn I captured Moscow and surrounding territory, I did not think about the necessity of taking Anglo Egypt before I found this website so I did not do this and now India is backed up. England gained control over the Atlantic and holds my battleship and 2 subs in sea zone 5 they hold it with a Huge fleet which has a fully maned aircraft carrier and they took western Europe with one tank remaining I can take this back quickly though because I have 4 tanks and 4 inf available in Germany I just wanted to know what I should aim for and what are my goals to try and get. my income per turn is about 20.

If you have any questions you can ask. about the home rules one more I should mention is that transports instead of having no defense can escape. they role one dice depending on how many ships are in the fleet, so if there is 2 ships the transport roles and a 2 or less it escapes if 3 ships it roles 3 or less escapes etc… if more then 6 ships it automatically escapes you can decide if it escapes or not if you decide to escape it can only move one space if it can’t move anywhere to a empty space or where there is friendly units it can’t escape it cannot move into a enemy occupied territory.
again if you have any questions on the home rules just ask thank you for helping.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

All it takes is a commitment to attack by Germany.

Germany buys 2 transports on turn one and 5 on turn 2. Turn 3 they put 16 infantry and 8 tanks plus the air power on London. They will already have that many tanks without having to purchase any so they still have money left over to commit to the eastern border. They take UK’s income and drop the ground units in the east that they didn’t on turn 2 or reinforce London with the transports they already have and infantry they purchase with UK’s money.

If they don’t get it turn 3 they can hit them again turn 4.� � Every single game.

GHC, just friendly debate here :) Buying 7 transports is a lot of IPCs in the critical 1st few turns.

If London has to be hit again on turn 4, I really don’t know how the Axis could win at all. The US will have to be kept of the war through Japan’s turn 3 which means India and ANZAC have enough time to build sufficiently to take care of themselves for a long time. Maybe only China is destroyed during this time, which I believe very critical. The US can fully concentrate on liberating London.

Yes, GHC, don’t get me wrong. Just saying…I like pulling off Sea Lion, even if I lose the game :)

It’s fun to sack London! I know how to execute a Sea Lion. I’ve done it successfully in 2 games (taken London a total of 4 times). In the 2 games London was taken, but not successfully, Germany could barely hold Russia back in both of them; planes had to be taken as hits just to get 1 tank on London. In the successful games, Moscow eventually fell, but in all 4 games London was liberated. The US can easily liberate London regardless.

I agree and already wrote in a previous post that no matter what, London can be taken. Have you ever experienced sacking London against a fully defending UK? If the UK player is able to put 16 infantry on London plus a fighter (UK 1 and UK2). Germany can still take it like you said. But Germany having to drop lots of ground while losing a whole turns worth of purchases is very taxing. The sacked treasury is often barely enough to stabilize and push Russia back. I go for Sea Lion only if everything goes right G1 and then the UK player gets too aggressive. Some people less experienced think a G1 purchase of 1 bomber and 6 infantry signals Barbarossa.

In the situation you describe, an experienced Russian player is going to get bonuses in Hungary and Romania, maybe Russia gets pushed back to their original borders, but Germany won’t be going much further for a very long time. A smart Russian player will have more tanks on the board than Germany and stacked on E. Poland.

Therefore I’m arguing that the HR idea of this thread is still not overkill for the Axis or at least in the situation of Sea Lion as you describe. This will mean though that a smart UK player will have to place 6 infantry/1 fighter on London UK1.

“Germany could spend every penny on executing Sea Lion and still successfully do it, even if the UK is putting everything on London, but at that point it’s too expensive; especially if Germany has to take plane hits to conquer London…”

Just to say again, that I like this solution for G40.

In the tripleA edit mode it only take a few moments.

Just enable edit mode
edit the “territory ownership” of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Chile to USA
click the neutral infantry and remove them, then “add units.” The default is American, since you already changed ownership.
then “Change PUs” of America from 52 to 60 ipcs.

Easy. It’s also fun to watch how the AI tries to make use of the new loot and the new units haha
:-D

Well, i guess it could represent an inhabited land. I have not really thought about its representation all that much. I just thought that this was a good idea for an addition to the game. In my opinion, i guess the “houses” could represent a land that has been fortified, mechanized, or one that has a barracks? It’s all up to the player i think.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No not at all. Never felt that even once.

Just had to clarify the rules so when you play it’s done correctly.

If you plug them into a combat simulation ( online) the odds give you these results.

Aircraft Carriers can be outfitted with technology to have AA Guns that fire just like ground based AA Guns.  Only one per sea zone may fire, but it may fire at each attacking enemy aircraft.

CV was a poor defender for anti-aircraft. They relied on CAP to intercept incoming planes at lower altitude to intercept these and drive them away from the fleet. The Carrier created an umbrella of air cover to protect in this manner. It could not stand up to much of a fight and was the weakest in terms of AA capabilities in WW2.

IN modern times this changed but not in ww2. At midway 3 Japanese carriers were sitting ducks because the air cover was lost fighting off waves of incoming torpedo-bombers, and the carriers had the best Japanese equipment money could buy and it didn’t mean a thing because they were unescorted by cruisers and enough supporting ships.

A BB was a slower moving ship and was meant not to engage fighters but to engage surface ships and having the slower speed could only hope to surprise the enemy from nowhere or fight on equal terms against other battleships. Cruisers were some of the fastest ships and much better suited to fight airplanes by escorting fast carriers that were vulnerable.

The only thing the BB should have is a first strike attack against other surface warships.

Cruisers should move 3 with carriers and have a AA gun at planes hitting at 1 on the first round.