Choice of attack

@panther I did not know this, thank you

That’s the point though. Sea Lion is an objective for Germany but there is no justification for doing while the USSR is still a credible threat because once you capture London, there is no way in hell you can defend against the US liberation and the Soviet invasion. Hence, just don’t do it. I am only suggesting that if one wanted to do an early Sea Lion, you will need Japan to put so much pressure on USSR that Germany can focus completely on US thus Japan will lose in the Pacific. I agree Sea Lion isn’t a wise move.

@JeroldTheGreat:

@ShadowHAwk:

kamikazes are basicaly useless in the game, unless there is a huge naval battle

.

Could someone please clarify the kamikaze rules? I thought that you could kamikaze any enemy surface warships in the marked zones during combat movement but I guess I’ve been completely wrong this whole time.

Just to add to Kam rule: Kamikaze can not attack Subs or Transports: So if you go into sz 6, go with a lot of Subs to kill the Japanese navy, but only on attack as a few of you already mentioned. The Japanese player will have to start sacrificing there destroyers if any, which then starts your surprise attacks once destroyers are out of the way.

BH

Just keep em there or attack something or put it someplace he has to attack. Just use your freebies.

It is hard to tell whether or not a counter-Sea Lion (as you put it) helped or hurt America.  For one, all those ships had to have made Germany and Italy’s jobs harder, but on the other hand, that’s less ground units to push out the Japanese.

I am always tempted to use this strategy with the allies. There is however always one thing which holds me from doing so: the Mongolian forces - if Japan can activate these units, I think this will tip the balance on the pacific board in favor of the Axis.

Nevertheless, It would be a disaster for Germany to defend another border, which is so close to france and the US at the same time…

The carrier fires back as long as it isn’t sunk.

The important thing to understand about mechanized infantry movement is that they move in exactly the same way that tanks do, except that they can’t blitz without a tank.  In most cases, the confusion on this issue comes from the definition of the term “blitz”.

Many people define “blitz” as any two-space movement by a tank, but that’s incorrect.  A blitz movement is a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory.  Only the first territory is “blitzed”.  The second one is not, regardless of its status.

So, mechanized infantry may only make a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory when paired with a tank.  Any other two-space movement that a tank can legally make can also be made by a mechanized infantry without an accompanying tank.  This means that mechanized infantry may always move two friendly spaces alone in noncombat movement, and they may also move two spaces alone in combat movement if the first territory is friendly.