What is Sydney's role? 1940 Global

Anti-aircraft units are/were embedded with combat commands at varying levels and always go “forward” with the command they fall under during offensive operations.

I think it would have been ok if the rules from the get go permitted an “attack” with AAA.

Going to start a HR rule thread on this.

@Young:

@Nippon-koku:

Japan has to almost have a perfect game to take India round 4 by not losing any land units on the islands and taking out ANZAC’s DD + TT round 1.�  There are no guarantees in a dice game.

Exactly.�  On top of that, even if Japan does take India round 4, how does it look on the rest of the board?�  Japan can’t take India round 4 AND dominate the waters AND completely wipe out China AND take care of the Siberian troops (most games I’m using those units to attack Manchuria or Korea) AND completely control the money islands.�

If Japan goes all out to get India by round 4 the Allies can cause them a lot of headaches elsewhere.�

I think new players favor the Calcutta crush, while experienced players understand other priorities.

And I’ll fully admit that Calcutta crush can appear unstoppable to new players who find themselves on the receiving end

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

Interesting Wirkey…

The repsonse of course, is to have -demands- in return to whoever has requested egress through the canal :P

“when you move your troops from here to there, I will let your ships through.” :D  A deal is not a DOW!

Looking at it briefly, I have no idea how you get a winning team. Tis not obvious…

You know, I’m kind of surprised that Larry didn’t include US Submarines in costing 3 IPCs for convoy raiding.  Historically, the US submarine force did the same thing to Japanese merchant shipping that German U-boats did to Allied shipping in the Atlantic.  In fact, the US submarines were actually successful at it whereas through convoying and ASW improvements, the U-boat threat in the Atlantic was gradually reduced.  US subs were so successful that in 1944 the US Navy had to cut back on submarine production because they already had too many and were running out of targets since they had so crippled the Japanese importing.

Gargantua was kidding…