Typical G1 attack includes attacking these two sea zones and most players do not recommend scrambling planes into SZ 110, but am wondering if anything changes in the Europe only game.

This is if there is no bid. I have no meaningful experience with E40 and G40 but it seems like doing Sealion is not worth it, and wanted to hear if people still go a buy that makes Sealion viable. I have seen on youtube videos people sometimes do an ac, dest, sub buy, or ac and 2 transports buy. I also have seen somewhere (i don’t remember where) someone even doing a battleship buy on G1. Buying any sort of ships does not seem to be worth it if Germany wants to keep an open mind about not doing Sealion, unless it specifically wants to invade the Soviet Union through the north, try to deny their 5 IPC NO by making SZ 125 hostile and taking Archangel as early as possible, and give any ships bought on G1/2 a purpose by doing amphibious attacks on Leningrad, setting up a transport shuck on that territory, and so forth.

Even then, it seems more viable to go the “southern route” for Barbarossa as General Hand Grenade puts it because the territories are worth more, there are NO’s for having Caucasus and Stalingrad, and it is also easier for Italy to help too.

I finally started reading the rulebook but still have a question for amphibious assaults. Can ships that cannot bombard (subs, dests, carriers) move into a sea zone where transports are unloading in a scenario where both of the following conditions are true?

1. The sea zone has no enemy ships (not even subs or transports either) in the sea zone
2. There is an air base on an adjacent territory but it has enough damage that it is inoperable, OR there is none at all.

This makes me think the answer is no - page 14 of the E40 manual: “Further, if enemy air units could potentially be scrambled to defend the sea zone, additional units may be moved into the sea zone to combat them in case they are scrambled”

@Elrood
I know it’s late, but thank you for the input. I have been doing attacking 106, 110, and 111 but not 109. Do you ever use the ships you have on G2 for Barbarossa if you don’t send them to SZ91?

This has probably been discussed a lot when the game first came out but I have seen people land a fighter from Romania on Tobruk G1. If Germany wants to “ping-pong” Yugoslavia but not take the territory (like attack it and retreat ground units to Romania), does the fighter HAVE to join the battle so that it’s allowed to land in Tobruk? It makes sense to make to me either way, since unfriendly neutrals can’t be flown over, but there’s also this in page 11 of the E40 manual: “When a neutral territory is invaded, it’s no longer neutral …”

This is if there is no bid. I have no meaningful experience with E40 and G40 but it seems like doing Sealion is not worth it, and wanted to hear if people still go a buy that makes Sealion viable. I have seen on youtube videos people sometimes do an ac, dest, sub buy, or ac and 2 transports buy. I also have seen somewhere (i don’t remember where) someone even doing a battleship buy on G1. Buying any sort of ships does not seem to be worth it if Germany wants to keep an open mind about not doing Sealion, unless it specifically wants to invade the Soviet Union through the north, try to deny their 5 IPC NO by making SZ 125 hostile and taking Archangel as early as possible, and give any ships bought on G1/2 a purpose by doing amphibious attacks on Leningrad, setting up a transport shuck on that territory, and so forth.

Even then, it seems more viable to go the “southern route” for Barbarossa as General Hand Grenade puts it because the territories are worth more, there are NO’s for having Caucasus and Stalingrad, and it is also easier for Italy to help too.

Suppose Germany controls Egypt, and an IC is present (whether it’s because there already was one or if Germany built it after capturing seems to be irrelevant). If the player uses the IC to build ground units but the territory is empty otherwise, do they still get the 5 IPC NO of Germany having a ground unit there?

This has probably been asked before but had questions about neutrality restrictions and purchases.

1. When Japan is at war with the Soviet Union, can Japan enter Soviet territories on the Europe side of the board when SU is not at war with Germany/Italy?
2. Can SU enter UK/France/ANZAC territories when the SU is at war with Japan, but none of the UK/France/ANZAC are at war with Japan?
3. Whenever there’s a game where America has to declare war to enter the war (like it had to wait until end of turn 3), can it buy more than 9 units on the turn it is allowed to declare war, or are they still restricted by the 3 unit placement per minor IC?
4. If America enters the war because of a J1 or someone else declares war on it first, can America buy 10 units per IC the first turn it takes after going to war or does it have to wait until the next turn?

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Interesting. I used to think scrambling is fine since I like taking Tobruk as the UK instead of Taranto. I feel like Sealion is not that viable in 2nd Ed 1940, regardless of if it is the Global or Europe only, since UK will take out some German planes. I think Allies have a better chance to win if Germany is doing sealion than barbarossa.

Edit: I have seen some forum threads that talk about baiting Germany into doing sealion, and scrambling into SZ 110 seems to be a way to do it.

Typical G1 attack includes attacking these two sea zones and most players do not recommend scrambling planes into SZ 110, but am wondering if anything changes in the Europe only game.

I agree with your first sentence. Is it because you think it’s better if the US and UK are both focusing on landing troops in France? In some games I’ve played, I found it’s better if the Western Allies are concentrating their landings in the same spot.

Hi,
I know this forum is for the most part inactive but wanted to hear anyone’s thoughts on who should take Italy if it becomes possible to take it. For purposes of simplification I want to leave out the Soviet Union as an answer since the game is probably already over if they are in a position to take the Italian territories and hold them until their next turn. Here were my thoughts. This is not a thread as to IF the Allies should try to take Northern Italy but WHO should take it if it becomes possible.

UK:
Pros:
Gives UK more money to work with (also consider Southern Italy is most likely guaranteed to be in Allied control if Northern Italy is taken)
UK can now have more land units on the continent without buying more transports to compensate.

Cons:
UK might not have the money to sustain both the London IC and N. Italy IC (Being capped at 4 units is not that small of a number for the Italian IC imo)

US:
Pros:
A complex in Europe puts US that much closer to the action
It has the money to sustain both the East Coast IC and N. Italy IC

Cons:
The US does not need the money as much as the UK
It takes longer for the US to reach N. Italy than it would for the UK (1 extra turn)
The circumstances of the game might make it so that it is difficult for US planes to reach the battle unless Vichy France, Corsica, or Sardinia, were legal landing spots because of what happened in earlier rounds.

I think it comes down to if I want the UK to have the income from the territory, or do I want the US to have it because they can use the factory more effectively.