Clarification needed…. Russia/Berlin captured on same turn

@marshmallowofwar but if there are fighters just sitting in Norway, they’re useless elsewhere.

The problem the bombers would be solving is the fighters sitting in Norway just picking up dust. The bombers could be in Moscow, Gibraltar, the UK, Norway, bombing any German production point and contributing to those 1 inf and 5 planes vs 1 inf battles.

The question is in my opinion: is the versatility that the bombers offer worth the cost of having fewer fighters to sit on complexes to intercept, protect carriers and sit on airbases, and secure US landings.

@Saber25 said in 1940 Global: Can you place a minor production facility in a territory the same turn you capture it?:

The US has captured Norway, and then the next turn placed a factory. Is it legal for the US to deploy ships into seazone 113, which is inside of the Danish straight? Clearly they could not pass through without holding Denmark itself, but it seems to me that there is no reason that the US could not deploy to that zone for additional pressure on Germany!

You are correct. Since the ship is being built it does not have to pass through any strait. A minor factory in Norway may build up to 3 ships per Turn in either SZ126, SZ125, SZ112 or SZ113 or any combination thereof.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

Yes there is a G1 gambit but against experienced players who can weather the storm it fails most of the time.  Seen it, but haven’t played it much though, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

Are you using original or second edition rules?

They reprinted global with new rules. They made it so the allies were not as screwed, but still pretty screwed. :)

@Cmdr:

knp,

I dont believe America would have to TAKE Korea, in your scenario.  You are free to NCM warships into hostile zones without risk of Kamikazee attacks so long as there are no enemy warships present.

So if Japan had no units in SZ 6, but had 6 Kamikazees left, America could waltz in with 3 battleships during NCM and nothing could be done about it.

Yeah, you are right.  USA could lose the land battle for Korea and still move in the warships to SZ6 in the NCM with no kamikaze attacks.  I worded that a bit wrong, but the point I was making was that as long as there are no Japanese naval units in SZ6, then the USA could move warships into SZ6 in the NCM and Japan could not use it’s kamikaze.  The battle for Korea has no influence one way or the other in this example.

Hey Jen, I know what you mean about those fluky AA Gun successes.  I once had a Sealion go very bad for me because of that.  I went in with 2 fighters, 3 tacs and 1 bomber.  The dang British AA Gun killed 1 fighter, 2 tacs and the bomber.  2/3 of my airforce whacked out just like that.

So the way you guys play Japan is more or less as fodder for the Allies so less pressure is on Germany/Italy so that they might win in Europe?  You don’t try to have Japan win on the Pacific side?  Some people have said that if USA goes mostly for Europe, then it is somewhat easy for Japan to get their 6 victory cities and win the game for the Axis.  If USA goes all Pacific, then Japan is probably doomed anyway and best choice would probably be to try and tie up US forces as long as possible so Germany can take down Russia.  However, if you see US going heavy in the Atlantic, don’t you want to try to win with Japan?

It depends on whether you’re talking about OOB or Alpha.  In OOB, kamikaze may be used if the ships end their combat movement in a kamikaze zone, whether or not there is a battle.  In Alpha, kamikaze are triggered by combat, not combat movement, so the ships must actually fight in a kamikaze zone (or launch an amphibious assault from it) in order to be targeted.