Is there a chart to show Progression from infantry to mech infantry etc

@ampdrive

AndrewAAGamer’s principles implies that only infantry should be built at first.

There were no changes to the treatment of neutrals in general, but the Soviet-Mongolian Defense Pact was added in the 2nd Edition.

@hecatomb:

…
Or:
4) An ANZAC-Bomber was visiting that airbase.

Awesome, never thought about that. That would be one cool bid :)

(could also bid 1 french bomber, for the lols :) )

I agree with both Bold and Cow.

Bold is right: 99INF is not a viable bid to demonstrate anything. It does not take away the risks (at all!) against a top axis player.
I also agree partially with Cow (after some more study) about the USA. Cow feels the USA is outright bad. I feel that the USA is indeed off-balanced.
This is because A). Japan can take Calcutta and keep it untill ~J9 when it attacks Hawaii with a fleet/invasion force worth ~600TUV and B) this cannot be dodged by US DD blockers, since Germany can fly some STR to Japan to remove them.

In other words: the USA cannot block off Japan indefinately, attacking the IJN if it moves forward in order to get in range of Hawaii. Therefore the USA must defend with a fleet worth ~570TUV (considerably more than what is needed for an attack on a blocked-off IJN) to prevent a Pacific loss for the allies, which leaves the USA with no more than a ~100IPC investment in the Atlantic for the first 9 turns…

The charm of A&A just dropped from 10 to 3 points on a scale of 0 to 10 for me. The 3 points left are for playing against players who are not aware of this loophole, thus not forcing me to go KJF.

I admit that this is not spelling doom for the allies because they can still go KJF, playing the allies in Europe like Gamerman said in another thread, but I find it highly disappointing that a KJF is the only way to go for the allies against this Japanese exploit (of what I call a loophole).
I’m afraid the easiest way to fix this while keeping all other rules intact, is to correct/improve the current victory conditions (G40.2) in such a way that the USA regains the option of going Europe heavy. To a certain extend, ofc, because largely ignoring the Pacific should still be punishable with loosing the game.
Brainstorm: why not set the axis victory conditions to 13 Victory Cities total. Europe heavy allies can prevent the Euro-axis from getting >6VC but then Japan will take 6VC (Hawaii), totalling 12 for the Axis and the battle for that 13th VC still looks like a tough way with a LOT of options to go for both sides…

From pg 28 of the 2nd edition Europe rules;

Blitz: A mechanized infantry unit must normally stop
when it enters an enemy controlled territory. However,
when paired one-for-one with a tank, it can make a blitz
movement (see “Tanks,” page 29) along with that tank.
The movement of both units must start and end in the
same territories.

Yes it was the first thing I printed up to use looking for game aids.

They look really cool.

Everyone kept losing one or dropping them on the floor.
(I dont know how many times someone has picked up their box with the lid on and the bottom tray falls out and spilled the contents all over the place. I even have one friend that keeps finding a Japanese infantry months after we played at his house. :roll:)

We have set up a small separate table to keep our IPC chart away from the game board and for us the larger objectives with token markers sit out on either side of the IPC chart or can be placed next to the actual player needing to keeptrack of their stuff.

I guess this style just meets our individual needs.

I am kind of interested in what people are having trouble with these 18 inf that russia can throw towards japan? I think those 18 inf are a lot less annoying than say giving brittain more troops, though giving china more troops at the expense of russia’s 18 inf might be a good change. I honestly like it when Russia keeps her 18 inf on the japan border or near it (18 inf and 2 aa guns less for germany to kill in moscow). If you weaken russia’s power here too much it might be worth it for japan to attack russia’s north. Maybe a good way to test it would be to make a house rule where russia looses 6 inf in the east and china gains 6 inf, but you can only put 1 inf per territory. I don’t know if letting china have the Burma road from the start of the game would be fair for japan? US going 100% japan for first couple turns might prove impossible for japan to beat it china is now significantly stronger with those 4 extra inf yunan plus the extra money and possibility of buying artillery. I see japan as being much weaker on the land since china will be more than just a pain, but a real threat and japan will have to buy more ground to compensate making japans navy weaker and in turn making US’s navy that much stronger. I haven’t played and extensive amount of games, so what do people think about the pacific side of the board and those 18 russian inf? Are you guys having a hard time beating japan as the allies, or keeping japan in check?

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.