"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion

We’s fightin’!

After a relatively long hiatus, @The_Good_Captain and I have been getting in a few games of E&W.

I’ve mostly been playing as the USSR recently; as I may have said before, I think my opponent has probably nailed down the ideal Soviet opener, so I’ve been trying to go a little off the beaten trail.

In this video, you can see my latest attempt – a “no Turkey attack” opening move as the USSR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydQmlM2JWI

Thanks again to @The_Good_Captain for editing and posting the video.
Feel free to comment below (and if you’d like us to make separate comment threads for actual gameplay, let us know that as well.)

Overall thoughts on the USSR:

Generally speaking, the conventional wisdom/orthodoxy amongst E&W players is that you need to at least take out West Germany, Greece, Turkey, and South Korea on rd1; if you’re going to push for taking out all of the countries in Scandinavia, you’d likely add Norway to that list. Aside from West Germany, you want to place infantry on the front lines on rd0, to be used in those attacks on rd1.

What @The_Good_Captain tends to do at sea (which is… unorthodox, but that may have to do with us old-timers not fully reading/understanding the submarine rules, back in the day) is to send transports and a fighter to clear the US sub at Guam, while sending the rest of the fleet (along with the bomber) to the Japan SZ, but having 1 attacking sub retreat to the Marcus Island SZ after the first round of combat. This blocks the other US fleets (and particularly, the US transport at Hawaii) from reaching either the Japan SZ or the East Siberia SZ, on rd1.

As a minor side comment, I find the 3rd Edition style of sub rules like these to be a little bit janky, in the sense that it ‘breaks’ the general rule that “all combat occurs simultaneously.” Specifically, I always understood this to mean not just attacking/defending rounds of combat in a single space, but also all spaces in combat, on the same turn.
With this sub movement put into place, it actually matters which of these two sea combats is resolved first, because the US sub at Guam SZ could potentially retreat into the Marcus Island SZ, thus spoiling the other part of this move. So, this rule necessarily means that each battle has to be done in a particular order (which, to my experience, wasn’t the norm in 2nd Edition Classic) especially when dealing with battles in adjacent sea zones, where subs are involved.

Now, my particular deviations from this overall strategy aren’t a refutation of them. My style is more “ok, that worked; now, what else works?” whereas the Captain tends to brute-force a winning strategy until someone or something breaks it.

In our recent games, there have been 3 driving ideas behind what I’ve been doing differently:

1. Sending the armor from Moscow to East Siberia, rather than Turkey. Generally speaking, I think one of the better strategies is to bottle up India with a huge wave of Infantry, and then pull back offensive units out to other theatres. The problem is that the armor are kinda slow, and I’d rather put them in a position to counter-attack Kamchatka and North Korea, ASAP.

2. Setting up air forces for naval attacks on rd2. Now, with the hindsight of some experience, this doesn’t work well at all – the Soviet fleets are in a lot better position to do damage to their NATO counterparts, before they’ve had a turn to merge up. But suffice it to say, this is why I have been largely keeping the Soviet navy out of major battles on rd1.

3. Reducing the number of combat rounds in rd1 battles. The idea essentially being “a penny saved is a penny earned”; what I was finding with the Captain’s moves is that the USSR was kind of gassed out on rd2, and didn’t have many infantry left after most battles (particularly in Greece, Turkey, and South Korea.) A slight shift in the odds could leave you in a really weak position in any/all of these battles, so I wanted to commit overwhelming force to land battles – in the process, stripping air power from naval battles. Ideally, you want the average number of combat rounds below 2, to produce the best results.

Ultimately, this 3rd point comes with some sacrifices (particularly combined with the 1st point) – in short, you typically end up ‘skipping’ one of the rd1 battles in order to beef up the others. By not sending the armor against Turkey, you end up having to pull fighters and/or heavy armor away from West Germany and/or Greece in order to compensate… meaning you usually skip Greece.

In this latest game, I went the other way around, skipping Turkey instead. Being isolated, it’s a little harder for NATO to move units in or out of, compared to Greece; it also has the benefit of that big stack of infantry in Moscow just waiting to be moved up to the front line. By not controlling the strait, you’re potentially sacrificing your Black Sea fleet – but I almost never end up being able to use them offensively anyway, so I don’t see that as a factor.

One of the pros to skipping any battle is that you don’t have to put any rd0 resources towards that battle, leaving more for others – typically West Germany, or possibly a Pakistan attack. The cons of skipping a battle is not destroying NATO “equipment” (particularly fighters) in Greece, Turkey, and/or South Korea.

It’s for this reason that I would posit the idea that the “ideal” battle to skip would be Norway, since it has no equipment in it, only infantry; I’ve seen the Captain pull 2 infantry out of Norway (when I’ve done this in conjunction with other strategies) but other than a move where you skip Greece / stack Yugoslavia strongly on rd1, NATO would be pulling these 2 infantry out of wherever you skipped a battle anyway (in Europe, at least.) So, probably the next go-round I take as the Soviets, a “no Norway attack”-strat on rd1 might make an appearance.

The other thing I’m weighing is how to distribute air power in Asia/Pacific on rd1; basically, the two fighters and 1 bomber can all participate in either the South Korea battle or the Japan SZ battle – so do you go all in on one, or the other, or split them? If you go all in on the naval battle(s), do you ‘skip’ South Korea entirely (negating a rd0 placement in North Korea)?
What I’ve come to find out is that crippling the Japan SZ fleet is critical, because the shore bombardments for the US are so potent – particularly if the US is all-in on the Pacific theatre. So an “overwhelming force” doctrine for land battles in Europe might not be what the doctor ordered, on the other side of the map.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Overall thoughts on the USSR:

One other minor thought that I would add is that I don’t generally find myself in a position to spend money on spies, as the USSR. I think the priority (as @The_Good_Captain plays it) would be using your spies to kill all of NATO’s spies… and if they stay dead, then the secondary priority would be boosting favour with China. Stealing nuclear tech would also be tempting.

As it is, the Captain will always replace NATO spies that get killed, and it never seems to have any material impact on him (militarily or otherwise.)

So I’ve generally resigned myself to:
a) rolling the free counter-intelligence, but otherwise not bothering with spying, and;
b) not building any strategy around relying on China (either moving through their territory, or them defending North Korea) beyond the first round.

@the-janus said in “East & West” by Imp Games - Discussion:

Pakistan: the other, other keystone state

A brief UK strategy discussion

(starting setup for the region)

Building off of this post, I think a broader discussion of the overall UK strategy is warranted.

Essentially, I would proffer that there are 4 places from which the UK can meaningfully generate units:

1. UK
2. India
3. Singapore
4. Ontario

The way I tend to look at it is that whatever you do on the rest of the board determines what you do at your capitol; if you place 5 infantry around India, then you’re going to place 3 transport loads in UK – either all infantry, or 4 infantry and 1 tank. If you control Pakistan, you’ll place those 5 infantry in Pakistan, India, and Burma; if you lose Pakistan, you’ll probably place in India and Singapore instead.

The unique positioning of Singapore means that you can do some interesting things with it, just by using one transport:

• Move 2 infantry to Burma every round
• Move 2 infantry to India every round
• Move 2 infantry to Pakistan (or Iran) on round X, and move 2 infantry to Burma on round X+1
• Move 2 infantry to Korea on round X, and move 2 infantry to Burma on round X+1

Now the question that always gets asked is whether to build an IC – and possibly, whether it should be built in India or Singapore.
As demonstrated above, the positioning of Singapore makes it an appealing choice, but it has all the same problems as a Philippines IC – with the added problem of the UK having less income than the US. Do you want to have to commit 3 transports so that you can build 2 tanks every round?

With an India IC, you’re committing at least 6 infantry (18 IPCs) per round to the theatre. Without building an IC, you can easily commit 5, and with 1 transport you can boost that up to 7. If that’s the case, then why even bother with the IC?

So let’s assume you’re using the IC to build armor instead:
3 infantry + 3 tanks = 24 IPCs
This leaves 9 IPCs for the rest of the board, meaning likely just 2 infantry for Europe… doable, but probably not advisable.
With a Singapore IC, 2 infantry + 2 tanks = 16 IPCs… assuming you spend at least another 9 IPCs for 3 infantry in India (total of 25 IPCs) that leaves just 8 IPCs for the rest of the map… also gross.

Probably (barring heavy armor, or self-propelled artillery) the best use of an India IC is something like 5 infantry + 1 tank, per round (20 IPCs). This leaves 13 IPCs for the rest of the map – essentially 4 infantry.
The other option would be 4 infantry + 2 tanks for India (22 IPCs), leaving 2 infantry + 1 tank for the UK (11 IPCs).
Generally I like to have the UK putting out 3 transport loads every round, but I’d say 2 is the bare minimum.

Now, the Ontario strategy is a very niche kind of build, but it is super fun if you’re willing to commit to it.

1. You need to commit (at least) your transports from India and Australia; send them up to the Chukchi Sea ASAP
2. You probably need to send both bombers towards Western Canada (and eventually Japan)

What this allows you to do is create essentially a complimentary Western Canada shuck to help your American friends; similar to Singapore you can:

• Move 4 infantry to East Siberia every round
• Move 4 infantry to Kamchatka every round
• Move 4 infantry to Korea on round X, and move 4 infantry to Kamchatka on round X+1

Because Ontario is worth 2 IPCs, the IC there allows you to build 4 infantry, then you can simply march them forward to Western Canada to get the pipeline rolling. If you can swing a 3rd transport over in that direction, you can instead place 1 infantry in Western Canada every round, along with 3 infantry + 1 tank in Ontario (the Quebec transport could reach the Chukchi Sea by round 4, but could actually reach Western Canada by round 3; the Italy transport would take until round 5.) It’s a very handy tactic for punching holes in the far east, to allow the US to walk in unopposed and reinforce those positions.

If you’re committing 12 IPCs per round to Ontario, that leaves a healthy 21 IPCs (7 infantry) to split between India and the UK – in other words, likely 3 infantry for India, and 2 transport loads for the UK.

Re: infantry placement rule in E&W, other general thoughts

One thing I’ve recently come to realize / appreciate about the infantry placement rule is that it really goes a long way to reversing the imbalances of the shuck-shuck (if not necessarily negating them.) This means that the game is a lot more more even vis-a-vis a land power like the USSR and countries that rely on navies.

What I mean by that is, transports effectively allow infantry to move across an ocean at faster speeds than they move across land. This seems… weird. So, while the “global” infantry placement rule may also seem weird and unrealistic, particularly in certain circumstances (US infantry in Japan or Iceland being examples that always stuck out to me) I think the rule actually is a step forward, in terms of mechanics. Sometimes I sort of just assume it’s meant to replicate something more akin to rail movement, or (especially for the USSR) communist / partisan uprisings. Create whatever fiction you want.

As those who have followed the videos might have noticed, E&W games are very short. Back in the day, my friend and I figured an average game was decided at about the 4th round; I believe the Captain pegged it as being within 4 to 8 rounds, in his video. This is a stark departure from A&A, where (for example) me playing E&W on the Classic map in TripleA takes something like 20 rounds for a NATO victory, and usually at least double that for the USSR to build enough boats to win.

Since the way we’re playing is effectively “PBEM” with MapView support, we usually can get through a game at a rate of about 1 “turn” (USSR, or all three NATO turns) per day – meaning we can wrap up a game in 1.5 to 2 weeks, tops. Part of that may be the distinct lack of a back-and-forth, in the sense of a game like A&A1914, just for example.

I do think that the speed of the game is definitely a point in its favour, particularly in the electronic format. I say this because (obviously) setup and teardown are very quick, but also because the units fit into the territories much better. As I can recall, on my physical map you could barely fit in a chipped stack of infantry onto territories like Poland, the Balkan countries, North or South Korea, etc. let alone any tanks or planes that were supposed to be there.

I love cruisers, and I think they work particularly well for this game; IMO the reason that we didn’t get the W@W-esque “half-battleship” unit (although I think that’s a general QOL improvement) is because E&W is so slanted in terms of the naval game. I think the way that damaged battleships are handled is meant to give the Soviets more of a chance, in that regard; they aren’t useless once they’re damaged but IMO it negates their main selling point – namely, shore bombardment. If I’m NATO, I tend to try and save a cruiser (or even a sub, if it’s early in the game) rather than a damaged battleship.

The Great Nuke Debate

One of the questions that comes up in the podcast is whether the Fusion Weapons tech functions as a direct upgrade to pre-existing nuclear weapons (such as the one that the US starts with, or any subsequent ones they might have purchased, while they only had the Fission Weapons tech.)

Now, to my eyes, the text of the rules supports this interpretation – I just want to say that, right out of the gate. There’s also the fact that the game doesn’t call out the two types of bombs as being different units (they’re all just “atomic bombs”) and neither the physical nor the electronic games include different units for fission weapons vs. fusion weapons.

Does this make sense, “realistically”? Not really; uranium or plutonium (fission) bombs function quite differently than hydrogen (fusion) bombs.

However, as I said in the podcast, (to my recollection) Imp Games did make a clarification that Fission Weapons and Fusion Weapons are considered different types of units. I also recalled having the different abbreviations for them in PBEM format (FiW, and FuW, respectively.) But, as I also said in the podcast, somehow this never made it into either:
a) the E&W 2nd edition rules clarification
b) the E&W “2nd edition merged” electronic-format rulebook
c) the E&W FAQ

As a side note, the FAQ says that:

[Q.] If the Soviet Union captures an Allied bomb before learning Fission technology, can they still use the bomb? Do they gain the technology just from capturing the bomb?
[A.] If the Soviets capture an American bomb, they can load it into a bomber and use against its former owners, but they do not gain the Fission technology.

However, in the original rules, it actually specifies:

The steps for delivering a nuclear device are as follows:
The attacker must have the fission bomb technology.

So, uh, ok then… The rules then go on to say:

The attacker builds a bomb on his “Purchase Units” phase.

Now, I may be grasping at straws but this is probably the only daylight as far as in-writing support for the distinction between the two bombs; if the purchasing of the bomb is considered part of the “steps for delivering a nuclear device”, then the technology which you have at the time of purchase should determine which type of bomb you’re purchasing and which kind you’re delivering… if that make sense – basically, the two ideas are linked together.

This might potentially explain the bizarre exception in the description for Fusion Weapons:

Benefits: Atomic weapons are at double strength (destroying ten enemy units), and reduce a territory’s value by two credits for one round. Note that a player may choose to deploy fission weapons instead.

i.e. Once you gain the Fusion Weapons tech, all nukes that you purchase are Fusion Weapons, but they may be “deployed” as fission weapons.

It is important to make this distinction – “deploy” and “deliver” are terms that are exclusively used to describe the firing off of atomic bombs, not their purchase nor the purchase of any other types of units. The only other instances of the word “deployment” are:

Atomic Bomb Complications:
Protests: Demonstrations at major universities prevent deployment of the bomb this turn. The USSR may ignore this result.

Ballistic Missiles: The German V-2 rocket was the prototype for all missile technology until about 1950. In fact, the dwindling supply of captured V-2s provided American scientists with incentive to begin developing their own missiles capable of delivering payloads hundreds of miles.
Benefits: Atomic weapons may be launched up to three spaces from an AA gun. No bomber is required for deployment. One bomb may be launched per AA gun on any given turn.

Now, that all being said, in practical terms my opinion is this:

• If you let the Americans upgrade their starting nuke for free? That’s probably not going to affect gameplay a whole lot.
• If you let the Americans stockpile a nuke each turn until they get the Fusion tech, and then upgrade ALL of their nukes for free? That’s gonna be a problem.

For those reasons, I would lean towards not treating the tech as an upgrade; I can’t envision a scenario where the latter assumption creates a desirable game state. I think either of these instances coming up are kind of niche (just based on my own playing experience) but I would chalk this up as one of the screwy/unclear/incomplete rules that need to be ironed out between yourself and your opponent(s) before you start playing a match. In fact, the rulebook even says as much, under their “tips for play and setup”:

If any rule is unclear, remember that the point is to have fun. Invent a replacement rule that is consistent and fair, and realistic if possible.

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

I’m thinking that probably the best way to break into “Middle Earth” as NATO is by applying pressure through the Mediterranean

@Ragnell804 and @The_Good_Captain had played a couple games against each other, which I got to look through the MapView files for, and see the aftermath.

Generally speaking, the idea played by TGC as NATO could be summed up as: US is the strongest NATO power, and Siberia is where the Soviets are the most vulnerable, therefore the US should project NATO’s strongest attack in this region.

This tended to leave NATO very weak in Europe, often losing Italy and leaving France very lightly defended. The sticking point was the potential of early Soviet spy purchases; a large stack of tanks in Yugoslavia, coupled with Switzerland being influenced by the USSR, could lead to the fall of France.

Now, the conclusion that TGC took from this situation was: “China First” for NATO diplomacy is dead

This is to say, that NATO needs to use any diplomatic successes it can muster in influencing neutrals such as Spain and Switzerland, in order to protect France and carry on with a US “Pacific First” strategy, militarily.

As you can see from the topic quoted at the top, I’m coming at NATO’s strategy from a different direction: the floating bridge / Middle Earth / Orient Express sort of ethos.

What this essentially boils down to, is WE and UK funneling troops to Italy to land in Turkey, and link up with the UK forces coming from India (and surrounding territories). Opening the Turkish straits also puts pressure on the USSR’s back line, because it means Romania, Ukraine, and Georgia can also be placed under threat.

As you can probably deduce, this means that in this strategy the UK and WE are providing most of the offense for NATO – which means the US needs to pick up the slack defensively.

The classic shuck-shuck still exists in E&W, and is fast and easy to set up, allowing the US to dump infantry in France for defense, while their allies push forward to Italy. In the Pacific, the US still needs to provide a credible threat in order to stretch the Soviet units out, but should pivot to supporting India if they aren’t able to make an offensive landing in the east.

Now, I had been developing this “more 50/50” US strategy well before I saw the games between Ragnell and TGC – it was something I tested using the Classic map in TripleA. But what this strategy ultimately does is provide an answer to their perceived problem of a Soviet diplomatic focus on Europe.

If the US has a huge presence in France, this means they can potentially be in a position to stomp out Spain (if the USSR influences them) and use the territory for their own; combined with a strong WE+UK force in Italy, influencing Switzerland also becomes untenable.

The reason I prefer this angle, is because it’s a repeatable counter that doesn’t rely on RNG – such as countering Soviet spies with NATO spies, where IMO the USSR has a distinct advantage; they get the free counter-intelligence roll every round that NATO has a spy on the board, and their spies go first.

The other contention I’ve made (such as in our E&W discussion on YouTube) is that the Soviets can lose the war from the Pacific, but they can’t win it from there. To me, that’s what makes it viable for NATO to downplay the Pacific in their overall strategy, as long as they are making attacks and pushing the Soviets back elsewhere.

NATO needs to be contesting Soviet gains as soon as rd2, if they’re going to be competitive and keep their opponent’s income down. IMO, the options for WE are to stack in France and try to contest West Germany and/or Norway, or to stack in Italy and try to contest Greece and/or Turkey. Aside from the potential that the straits provide, the Mediterranean is the obvious central point for WE units from Indochina to rally with the other units around Europe – rather than trying to move ships all the way around to the North Sea. Likewise, the UK starts with one transport in the Atlantic, one in the Mediterranean, one in the Indian Ocean, and one in the Pacific – again, the Mediterranean is the obvious central point to rally, once the UK has scooped up their units from Australia in the east, and Canada + Iceland in the west.

One adjunct to this strategy that I would like to mention is the notion of what I generally refer to as “double duty”

What I mean by this, is getting maximum defensive value out of your units, while also having them in a position to be an offensive threat.

For example, WE infantry placed in Italy serve the purpose of defending a frontline territory when it is not their turn, but can also be used to attack amphibiously around the Mediterranean when it is their turn.

Compare this with a strategy such as WE placing infantry in Madagascar and Mozambique, to shuttle into Pakistan; the territories these units are being placed in generally aren’t under threat, and therefore are not getting that immediate defensive value.

Opening Purchases for Western Europe / Overall Strategies

I’ve been thinking about this topic a bit, and have used a few different options in recent games, so I decided to lay things out.

Starting with 32 IPCs, here are your basic options:

• 10 inf [save 2]
• 9 inf, 1 arm
• 8 inf, 1 trn
• 7 inf, 1 spy [save 1]
• 4 inf, 4 arm

Spying Game (7 inf, 1 spy [save 1])
Generally the reason to buy a spy as Western Europe, is to essentially give the NATO team one more bullet in the cylinder, in terms of countering whatever they presume the Soviet spies are trying to do – whether that be counter-intel, influencing China, or trying to get minor neutrals on-side to beef up Soviet attacks (particularly in Europe). Now, this last one is, IMO, the worst use for the WE spy in particular.

Think of it this way: if WE gains Spain, that essentially means they get enough IPCs to place 1 more infantry, per round; if the US or UK gets Spain, that means they can place 3 more infantry directly onto the continent – never mind adding an industrial complex, if they so choose. I could potentially see WE influencing spaces like Thailand or Ethiopia in order to give a tiny, safe income boost and to better facilitate the movement of UK troops towards India, but those still wouldn’t be my first choice on a spying success, as WE.

The other issue is that once that spy gets killed, WE doesn’t really have the means to replace it; after rd1, you’re generally only putting out 7-8 infantry per turn, and I feel like placing 3 less than that to replace a killed spy just isn’t worth it. YMMV.

Mare Nostrum (8 inf, 1 trn)
My opinion is that you can play WE in two broad ways: as France, or as Italy. (If there’s a 3rd option, it’s basically “playing as Indochina” and supporting the UK in India – more on that later.)

Playing as Italy essentially means trying to dominate the Mediterranean – in close co-operation with the UK. You want your infantry in Italy for defense, but also so you can amphibiously assault Greece or Turkey, using a shuck-shuck. If you move your transport from Indochina to Pakistan on rd1, it can then reach the Cyprus SZ on rd2, potentially adding 2 inf from Indochina to an amphibious assault into Turkey, coming from the other direction; if the USSR attacked/influenced Iran, you can also fly your fighter from Indochina over, to add to the attack.

With 4 transports in the Mediterranean, WE can pack quite a punch – and because they own Greece and Turkey, liberating these territories themselves means more cash on hand. It’s also worth mentioning that, as a 4-IPC territory with an industrial complex, Italy can put out 8 infantry every round (enough to fill 4 transports) as long as you have the cash to do it. (Worth noting, if you are only down Norway, West Germany, and Greece, your income will be 24 – exactly enough for 8 infantry. This is why liberating Turkey can be so potentially lucrative, in addition to opening new lanes of advance.)

The reason to not go this route is if the USSR positions planes close to the Mediterranean, at the end of their first turn. In this case, it’s my preference to scatter the fleets out of range of Soviet planes; the riskier alternative is to send the lone WE sub with the planes from France to try and take out the Black Sea fleet (the fighter having to land on the UK carrier, afterwards.)

If you choose to gather all of NATO’s navy around the Algeria SZ or Italy SZ to beef up your defense against a Soviet naval attack, the problem is that either your transport from Portugal will be out of position, or the UK carrier won’t be positioned to help with the Turkey attack – meaning on WE2 you might have to settle for attacking Greece, or not attacking in the Mediterranean at all.

Spend it All! (9 inf, 1 arm)
As the name implies, the reason to go this route is that it allows you to spend all of your money. The tank gives you a little extra offense on land; ultimately, what you need to quickly determine is whether your tanks should be in Italy or in France, to counter-attack Yugoslavia or West Germany, respectively. If the Soviets have a bad S1, they may be weak enough in West Germany to be counter-attacked right away, but generally Yugoslavia will be the easier target on WE1. However, because of its central location, often the USSR will opt to drop their stack down in Yugoslavia after the first round, so WE needs to make sure their tanks are positioned where they can actually strike back, long term.

Armor Doctrine (4 inf, 4 arm)
Since WE is generally not ever going to be richer than they are at the start of the game, WE1 is when you need to make your expensive purchases – if at all.

Going with this option essentially gives you 2 less units on defense than if you go with all infantry, but the offensive power can be particularly potent against a weak West Germany position for the Soviets. Ultimately, the trick is to inflict as many casualties in as few rounds of combat as possible, and to spare as many of your own infantry from your attacks as you can manage. That’s how you gain the economic advantage in this dead-zone management microcosm. Now, you could position your armor and infantry in Italy (particularly in a strategy where the US and UK are bankrolling France’s defense) but overall I view this strategy more as a “playing as France” type of move.

The other consideration when playing as France, is what is your secondary target (if your primary target is West Germany)? Two distinct options present themselves:

• Greece
• Norway

Now, either territory can easily be within shuck-shuck range of France (either in the Mediterranean, or in the North Sea / Barents Sea, respectively) however, a fighter stationed in France is more easily able to hit Norway, and return back to France for defense – which is why I would recommend this tact, when playing as France. In either case, you will need to coordinate naval coverage with your allies, so make sure to take that into consideration. Also, a single US transport can feed 2 infantry from Iceland into Norway every round, in addition to any support the UK can quickly provide, from their capitol.

Read and React (10 inf [save 2])
Obviously, this is the generalist approach. I would argue that if you plan to support the UK in India by placing 2 (or even 1) infantry in Indochina, this is probably the build you’re going to use – not to say that you couldn’t use one of the other high-inf options. With that in mind, you can also use this build if you’re just going to focus on defending Europe; maybe the Soviets don’t give you a good read one way or the other, but you know (for example) that you don’t want to drop down an extra transport because there are too many planes circling around.

If you are going for an India focus as WE, my suggestion is to use your transports to immediately route your tanks through Africa. From Algeria to Sudan is 2 spaces, so with the right planning and maneuvering of transports, you can get a tank from France to Pakistan or India by WE3. Sending the starting tanks from both Italy and France (plus getting the infantry from Africa over to Pakistan) will keep your transports occupied for a while.

As such, you need to decide what you’re going to do with your transports afterwards: are you going to pivot to “playing as Italy”, or do you want to use Mozambique and Madagascar to shuck 2 additional infantry to Pakistan every round? You’ll need to have a good read of the map, and know what options will work for you. (Alternatively, if you went the “Spend it All!” route, shipping a 3rd tank over might give you an extra round to decide on your next move.)

One thing I like to do when I focus on assisting India as WE, is to send the bomber (with a paratrooper) to Pakistan on WE1; you can then send the bomber to New Guinea on WE2, and bring the infantry from there, as a paratrooper back to Pakistan (or India) on WE3. This might not be the best use of your bomber (so feel free to do something more aggressive, if the opportunity arises) but it does free up your transport from trying to pick up that lone infantry, FWIW.

@barnee
re: E&W in TripleA

I sent a message to @Argothair but I got no response… So I figured I might as well ping you and post in the thread, to see if that helps.

Recently I’ve been poking around with the TripleA version of Revised (a map that’s much closer to E&W than most other ones) and an idea occurred to me:

Would it be at all worthwhile to just bolt the “rules” from the 3rd Edition/Iron Blitz version in TripleA onto a different map (such as the Revised map) to get something approximating E&W? Is such a thing even possible, or is it harder than just doing it all from scratch and getting it exactly right?

Likewise, would it be easier to start with the Europe 1940 map, and rewrite the mechanics to fit E&W? Or is there too much code baked into the maps themselves, already?