Multi nation a/c

@always-wanderer

That one looks great too! Thank you again for sharing these great resources!

No, Manchuria is considered to be an originally Chinese territory. The only valid territories for the British NO are Japan, Okinawa, Formosa, Iwo Jima, French Indo-China Thailand, and the Caroline Islands.

I thought the secret in 42, was to maintain a navy in the baltic?

I could be mistaken…

@Omega:

The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)

To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.

If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game

Robert

kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land

worth a fighter?

I find the US/UK vs Japan option (1941) is very viable.  Maybe I am misreading what was said before, but it actually seems more viable to me than a traditional kill Germany first. (I think this is because Italy can liberate/take land and Germany can reinforce it with fighters to defend now, a very significant and major defensive capability!)

America may be limited to 52 IPC or less a round if they go Kill Japan first.  However, England should be making significantly more than the 20-30 IPC they get in a kill Germany/ignore Japan campaign because of the NO in the Pacific, the non-loss of the NO in the Indian Ocean/Africa/Australia/etc, the increased land ownership in the Asian SE and SE Pacific Islands, etc.  Meanwhile, Japan shouldn’t be earning too much either, America could, realistically, be earning near to more than double what Japan is if played right.

@Cmdr:

If you are lucky and Japan is not primed to take India round 2, an Indian IC can be a godsend.

If Germany did not hit Egypt, than an Egyptian IC is even better! (Italy has no chance, not with 4 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber in Egypt at the end of England 1.)

I like one in Philippines as well, FIC isn’t half bad either.

France works well for the Allies too.

If your building in France, Phil, Man, or FIC doesn’t that mean the game is well in progress and your at stages you can’t really plan for at the begining of a game?  And if the UK happened to take France it is so darn close to it I would hesitate to build an IC there (unless making massive amounts of cash).

A Brazil factory seems pointless/ a liabilaty, A Norway factory for the UK seems redundant (unless they are making massive amts of cash) but may be OK for the US player.  Canada seems silly.

I have never been in a position to be able to consider an early IC build in Egy or India.  If one insists on an early factory build I would say SAF is easily the most defendable option, but the better option if it can be done would be a T2 Aussie buy

This is actually a question that gets asked fairly often about each incarnation of A&A.  I guess it just confuses some people that they can move forces into a contested area after the battle is over.

@axis_roll:

Don’t get me wrong, I like to KJF, it’s more fun, since it IS harder to execute.  I like a challenge.  Probably why I like to play the Axis… they’re the underdog.

So KJF is an underdog type of allied strategy.   :wink:

KJF is harder of master, not of execute. When you master KJF, it’s more powerful than a mastered KGF. First, because very few people know how counter KJF and many start to do strange things. Second, because it’s easier for axis reach economic parity in KGF than in KGF. Third, for league games, I found it’s easier reach 9 VCs with KJF (Manila, Shangai, Paris). Fourth, a KGF strat let Japan try invade american mainland (a strat I still don’t master, but seems very nasty in a initial KGF game)