National Advantages

thank you, he is close to capturing a capital and trying to capture a second one.

wrong section to post these . put them in house rules. This forum is only for the OOB game.

@tekkyy:

@Gerbilkit:

Um… I’m confused. How the hell are you stopping the Japanese from taking India round one if you’re pulling 2 infantry out, unless you have Colonial Garrison.

I ask at the risk of being obvious …

Were you playing 8 VC game?
If so, LHTR changed it to 9 VC.
So its ok to lose India to stop Germany getting Africa income.
Still an IPC win overall for Allies.

Not if Japan is able to build and fortify an IC there on the second round and be pumping tanks out towards Africa and the Caucus J3.  :-P

The reason they are rated low, for me, is as follows:

1)  Submarines are expensive
2)  Submarines die to fighters without risk to the fighters
3)  Submarines purchased take 4 full turns to break even (odds?)
4)  The two submarines in SZ 5 die in every game I’ve ever seen.  It’s just a debate over when, not if they die.
5)  Germany has no business buying up lots of submarines.
6)  America is relatively unaffected by U-Boats.  Sure, they have less money, but honestly, -3 IPC from 42 IPC is not that much.

Those are ranked in order of importance to me.

That said, if you get them as a random bonus, it isn’t horrible.  Germany, of course, has no worthless advantages.

I’m teaching my cousin how to play I was the Axis b/c he was born in England and moved to Canada so he was die hard about having the UK any way I gave him a bid last time b/c he got wasted the time before I gave him 15 IPC’s to use for any allied country. I wasn’t worried b/c I thought he would buy a US Pacific Navy. Instead he bought 5 INF and put them in Moscow. Needless to say that slowed down the Axis advance early on.

I like your idea about mixing it up. Keeps them on there toes. he he

-LT04

Some are just cheap, though, like the Superfortresses. Since fighters can’t intecept SBR’s, you can bomb at will with America, while being perfectly content to lose nothing.

Fighters are great for Germany.  I think every other round they should be building at least 1 fighter to replenish losses.  However, I do not ascribe to the Germany’s on the defense theater of thought.

Once you get it in your head you are defensive with your power you are going to loose the battle.  No nation can fight a defensive war against an aggressor and win.  This is why the South invaded the North in the Civil War (they did so too late, IMHO.)  Likewise, the option of 100% infantry is a turtling maneuver that slows you down WAY too much, in AAR. (in classic it’s a different story, you don’t have 3 eastern fronts to defend, only 1.)

With Germany you have GOT to keep a ratio of 3:1 infantry to armor and at least 5 fighters to defend France.  More would be extremely better!!!

Go on the offensive IMMEDIATELY.  Keep hammering away.  Leave Fin/Nor and Karelia empty if you have too, but put as many troops on the Muscovite border as humanly possible as fast as humanly possible.  This will force Russia to consider pulling eastern troops away from Japan, meaning Japan doesn’t have to kill htem, just gobble up the land.

Remember, it’s going to take 3 rounds for America to get that BB to England.  That’s 3 rounds you have to destroy any British forces you can find, so that when that BB does make it, it’s not as protected.  (A few subs will help here.)

Basically,

Buy 1 Carrier R1
Buy 1 Fighter R2
Buy 1 Sub R3
Buy 1 Fighter R4
Buy 1 Sub R5

etc.

5 Subs, 1 DD, 1 Trn, 1 CV, 2 Fig is a pretty strong offensive force.  Especially if you can manage to get the BB/Trn from the Med to join it.

But in order to do that, you have GOT to be grabbing land.

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!