Bid with national objectives off?

@dictatorcj

Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.

@squirecam said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:

@squirecam

I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.

I absolutely agree with this. This is how the German player should take Leningrad. Obviously with troops bordering leningrad as well like from Finland/Belarussia as well as the Baltic states. And granted it doesn’t take a huge navy to protect 3 transports givertake. Like I said, unless theres a detail I’m missing, Leningrad won’t win you the war, but it’ll substantially put the war effort in your favor as Germany, and frankly taking Leningrad should be Germany’s #1 priority to begin with, regardless of the 1941 or 1942 setup, and I would expect a proper Soviet player to take immediate actions to protecting Leningrad as if it’s more important than Moscow, and if the Soviet player thinks retreating from Leningrad is a good idea then you’ve just basically won the game.

But all in all, this is of me going by the idea that the Soviet Player knows what they’re doing, and knows how to take immediate steps to fighting off the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Like I said, I dont disagree that Germany shouldn’t have a navy say in the Baltic Sea to protect the territories bordering it as well as the transports but no way in hell will they be building a large enough navy to take on the every growing size of the British and American navy. (Yes, I’ve done a 42’ scenario with a buddy of mine and as the allies both America and Britain had possession of atleast 2 aircraft carriers filled with fighters and a battleships).

Hense why the only way Germany will be able to so said “Walk up to Moscow and then take Caucusus” is through tanks and blitzkreig. it’s what they were designed to do, move fast and move efficiently across terrain

I also did something like this on 42 2E, and worked. A bit risky but worth the fun doing this as an alternative start.

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@PizzaPete said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

Anyone here ever try putting a Japan IC in East Indies Round 1?

YES! That was the first reply in this thread

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@Soviet-Steamroller said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

1) where to put my IC? (F.I.C. or Burma directly under UK’s nose?).

East Indies. It produces 4 units per turn, you’ll have a navy nearby in SZ35 after J1 (for a J2 build of a tpt and 2 inf, perhaps AAA if the allies get cute with a USA bomber in australia

A decent UK player would probably put an IC in India in response but also could muster 1 inf from Persia and 2 Fighters (Egypt & Australia). On my J2 i would be facing 4 inf, 2 fighters and 1 AA!

Well don’t I look like an idiot, lol. My bad.

Welcome to the forum, Nate 13.

Amphibious assault movement occurs during the Combat Move phase. So you must bring transports already loaded to SZ 14.

When the sea battle occurs, Combat Move phase is already over. There is no way to add another Combat Move then.

Bridging from Italy during Combat Move phase would have been allowed, if SZ 14 had been friendly, then.

@afterword I like to put a IC in Burma and move troops down to FIC. I like to force a response from the Allies either with a IC in India by the UK or Russia moving to support. Anything that takes money or troops away from Europe helps.

no bids.  42 is balanced.

@woodstock said in Can the Allies win in 1942?:

“How long can Russia hold out on it’s own against Germany?”

Quite a while. In fact, Russia can hold out for so long they’ll have taken Berlin. Yup, I’m being serious when I say that, a proper USSR player can hold out against Germany, and Italy, push them back all the way to Rome and Berlin and win the war all together. What I’m saying may seem WAY too overstretched and I dont blame u for thinking that. But I sure as hell did it in the 42’ setup. And after doing it, it made me see the obvious.

The Soviets can’t ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. By turns 7-9 the Soviets will have needed to shift the tides, and be on the offensive towards Berlin, whether the allies have landed or not.

As much as I’d like to think that America and the British have some huge major important factor in this, they really don’t. The entirety of the war effort all rests on the brains and brawns of the player playing the Soviet Union, granted that’s not to say the U.K and the U.S can’t help a brother out, I’m just saying this so called Soviets hold out until “Round 4, 5 or 6” is pretty baloney. Because the that’s pretty much the time when America and the U.K should be SETTING UP to land in mainland Europe, and they still won’t do it for another good 3-4 turns.

Something that one of my favorite Axis and Allies youtubers said, GeneralHandGrenade, spoke of the fact that as the allies (America specifically) There is no short cheap way to win the war for the allies, landing on turn 3-4 is WAY too early for either, frankly a properly played game as the allies could genuinly go on till’ round 11 or 12.

And if any player can’t seem to hold out against the Germans and Italians in the 1942 setup then they’re playing the Soviet Union wrong, and you should probably hand off the role to somebody else, because the player playing the USSR kinda needs to know how to play the game, and play it well.

(i know this is old, I dont even think you’re gonna see this but I was born in the early 2000’s so I wasn’t around for the forums)