Posts made by Aretaku

@Mattpun:

Japan is clearly the weaker axis player both economically and militarily. Besides its fleet, it has little other substantive forces necessary for taking the mainland in early rounds - no tanks, few troops and only 2 transports.

I agree completely…Japan is a far easier target than Germany.

Russia: the setting up of American bases should be the goal. Move the eastern forces (6 men) into Bury to form a landing site for US avaiation. 1 Russian fighter to Sianking for defence and offense, and if you feel unsafe 1/2 men. Its range is good - it can support the six men into Manch next turn/ and or into Uk/WestRus/etc and land in Cauc. The threat to Russia from Germany is at its most minimal in the early rounds of the game and any decent Russian player should be able to handle Germany trades early on.

UK: IC into India. The UK is in many respects the key - its primary task, the most important of the game perhaps, is to sink the lone Japanese transport off the coast. At least the fighter, even the destroyer from India. What happens next depends on how Egypt transpired. Whatever occurred, move anything thats left to India. If the fighter has survived, very big bonus. Move your bomber to Moscow. Has range over Manchurian coast.

Solid moves all around…but I’ll point out one problem towards the end of my post.

Jap: now has problems. It has one transport - the mainland cannot be effectively supplied, Russia will take Manchuria no matter what (suicidal 3 men + planes is gold for the allied player to watch a desperate Japan player do). Its fleet now has 3 big problems -  Pearl Harbour, India fleet (at least carrier, plane, transport - hopefully Egypt destroyer  and plane too), and planes threatening home waters - UK Bomber, India fighter can attack Manchurian coast and land in Burit; US Bomber, Hawaii fighter, Hawaii carrier fighter Japan’s pacific coast). Japan must take out Pearl Harbour - but must also send capital ships to Japan to protect transports built (2-3 on average). The India fleet is unlikely to be attacked - if it is, US fleet will rapidly dominate. In the end, will split forces and protect Japan and do Pearl Harbour light.

There are two problems with this that I see…

1. UK spending is going to have to include units in India for at least a few rounds until the Allies can contain Japan fully…and Japan WILL be gunning for that IC. You will be spending very little in Europe.

2. If, as an Axis player, I see a Russian fig to Sinkang, and a British Bomber to Moscow, plus an India IC, I know that the Allies are gunning for Japan. My German press on Russia will be greatly intensified, especially with so much British income being sent to the Pacific.

US: IC in Sianking. Counter-attack remaining Jap fleet at Pearl Harbour  with BB, trans, fighters from Haw, LA and Bomber. Haw fighter and bomber to Bury. If Japan did not protect its new transport airforce attacks there. Build carrier and transport in LA, 2 transports East (for pressure in Africa/WEur/ or eventually Norway).

The best counter for this is to hit Pearl as light as possible and use the Capital ships to hit Bury…even if it can’t be taken, it’s worth eliminating the Russian threat and forcing Russia to defend his eastern front.

I like hitting Pearl with the DD, the sub if it lived, the bomber, and the Caroline fighter…none of the pieces are vital in the long term, and it means your two BBs and two ACs can be in SZ 60 to guard your trannies, as well as spank the US if it counters with fleet.

Long-term - the US fleet on t2 to Solomons, t3 to big island. BUILD another IC. UK also tries for a big island too. Japan will be left with big problems due to US airforce and russian base. Its only long-term avenue is through far east. That will take 4-5 turns. US and UK to trade Japanese mainland territories, keeping their main forces in India and away from the coast.

A sound strategy, but I think it’s underestimating how vulnerable a Buryatia airbase is, and overestimating just how much the UK can bring to the fight.

The further advantage of this strategy is this: a good German player will obviously play defence from turn one and thus not be able to adjust quickly from a 8-10 inf build (plus either carrier/transports/tanks/fighter). They lack mobility from turn one onwards, withdrawing into the turtle.

If Germany breaks through in Egypt, is not countered, and UK spends heavy in the Pacific…little is left to stop the Germans. A second round tank build can catch up to a first round infantry build. Combined with luftwaffe support, and little to no UK/US pressure, by round four the Russians will be yelling for help.

Focus on Japan. They are weak and allies can co-ordinate all forces into Japanese territories. Once its loses its islands, it basically can’t get them back.

True enough…but if the Allies are delayed, which is certainly within Japan’s capabilities, it is extremely difficult for the Allies to switch focus to help defend Russia.

Japan can also go all out for the Allied ICs and focus on aiding Germany against Russia, giving up on the Pacific…letting the Allies blow their money on a large navy while Russia stands alone against the Axis. Japan might fall before Moscow, if the Allies can reduce their income fast enough, or they don’t get a chance to expand on the mainland…but I wouldn’t count on it, it takes a lot of fully loaded transports to crack Japan if any effort is made to defend it.

As much as I agree that Japan is the easier target, I think going all out against them causes many problems for the Allies in the long term. Grind Japan down slowly…don’t gun for a Borneo IC on US 4…instead ensure that Africa is retaken and Japan is booted off the mainland…THEN gun for their islands and their fleet.

Cheers.

Right back at ya!  :-)

I like the paper, and I will probably give it a shot next time I’m Germany, but there are two points that make me wary.

1. You’d BETTER win in Egypt. This strategy leaves no margin for faliure. The last thing you want is for the UK Indian fleet to join up with the DD in SZ 15.

2. I still don’t like the UK Bom/DD versus Ger BB/Tran in SZ 13. If UK gets lucky, then you’re down a transport (or possibly both transports if he hit SZ 7 with the rest)…it’s not like UK needs a DD that’s hardly ever alive, so it’s more a question of whether or not the UK player is willing to potentially sacrifice a bomber to force a German Rd 2 transport purchase.

Maybe build a sub in SZ 14 to block the DD and buy a few less Inf??

…still, quite interesting.

@axis_roll:

For every action (strong allied pressure on Japan) there is an equal re-action (less pressure on Germany).

But as I stated, it takes only a few simple moves, and no additional resources on the part of Russia and Britain, to hamstring Japan and leave the door open for America. Any additional spending by Britain or Russia against Japan after that is merely icing on the cake.

In Enhanced, Germany is the real Bear.  But the German player must do more with less allied pressure than just buy inf and tanks as a ground unit push by Germany is relatively easy to contain for a long enough time for Japan to be taken out of the game.

The German player needs to think of innovative ways to keep the allies honest if they pressure Japan hard.  A Strong Atlantic navy is a great way to do this. Keep UK on threat of being amphibiously assaulted, force great losses with convoy raids that force defensive buys for the allied atlantic fleet.  Germany can invest in rocket technology to slow UK and Russia enough to overpower their ground forces once a dominant navy is in the atlantic.  You can also assist Japan via shared techs of jet power (3 loaded Jap carriers with six fives are hard to sink) or super subs.  In Enhanced, the shoe can be on the other Axis foot… Germany must take the pressure off Japan instead of the other way around that is often seen in Revised.

So if Germany is spending all this money on fleet and tech, how are they making ANY progress against Russia? Russia has no Japanese front to worry about if America is bringing heavy pressure against Japan

Learn to play a very conservative Japan.  Do not try to do too much as to conserve all your units.  Japan needs to hold 4 VCs once the German Bear has knocked down the Kremlins doors.

The Non-argession treaty also can help Japan to keep Russia from moving in on the Japanese asian territories.

I’ve seen a three power attack (US from Sink, Russia from Bury, UK from India) easily sweep aside all Japanese mainland resistance.

This is especially true if any additional efforts were geared towards Japan (Siberian conscripts, British India factory, US Sink factory, heavy airforce deployment)

Concentrate on building an unstoppable IJN.  Take two naval national advantages.  Kaitens are helpful with their reduced cost.

Yes, Japan can be tough to play in Enhanced.  But a shift in philosophy when playing them can help the axis win when played properly.

@Bean:

I agree with Axis Roll. You should play a conservative Japan, the same thing you would do in KJF in Revised. Both sides are stronger, Japan has some interesting NAs up its sleeve and so does the US with nas/convoy raiding, but the basic remains the same.

He’s spot on with Germany being the bear. You have a huge incentive to keep a large German navy (convoy raiding the UK), and if you keep that up with large gains in Africa, you might be able to run over both UK/Russia.

I’ve yet to see a game where Germany can keep up with BOTH the UK navy and the Soviet army…even with convoy raids

For Japan, they have great ways to play conservative. Banzai infantry gives your land war much needed firepower/flexibility

It’s also nearly useless unless you’re planning on a ground war in Asia, which cedes your Island income to US/UK

you can use less fighters than normal and worry less about picket inf + aa guns. +1 dice point to a cheap unit is a very powerful bonus (yeah lasts one round, but that is often the most important round, and when you think about it most battles don’t last more than 1-2 rounds anyways). Kaitens gives you some much needed naval fodder, and in case those carriers aren’t reinforced, then it’s time to give the American’s a huge headache by suiciding into them.

I would probably pick those two NAs. Banzai to break through the land war, Kaitens to give you cheap naval fodder.

I don’t see how Japan can afford to split it’s focus, especially considering it’s lack of ability to expand…they only have so many IPCs to work with, and are often already in the hole if Borneo went badly.

I would also at some point consider going with lots of heavy bombers. That really keeps the US honest, because it is a very hard unit to counter navally speaking.

They also can’t help defend your fleet, and cost more than Japan can really afford, and that’s without needing 4-6 tech dice.

Between cheap subs and heavy bombers, you could tie up the American’s navy for a while.

What stops America from splitting it’s fleet? The bombers can only reach so far, and subs alone cannot do much to a fleet unless they have a significant advanatage in numbers.

As I said…America can afford heavy losses, Japan cannot.

Then hopefully Germany is going nuts, and if it isn’t doing well, then hopefully it’s more of a dice issue or a strategic mistake, and if it’s neither of those, then it’s just time to up the bid.

I’m seeing a 9 to 11 IPC bid in recent games…and it still isn’t enough.

The hardest part I think in AARE is that the US can conduct convoy raids on Japan; this really encourages a big sub strategy using naval industry/reinforced carriers. But on the flip side, Germany can convoy raid UK.

The US can raid Japan without fear, since there is no credible threat to US income.

Germany cannot raid UK without fear, since a heavy fleet gives the Russians a free hand.

You have to adjust to AARE’s ruleset, because it’s designed not to be exactly like AAR. German navy + victory cities are the biggest things to keep in mind, because those are the things that give the Allies headaches they didn’t in Revised.

Germany’s only real chance to gain VCs is against Russia. How can this be achieved if they go heavy on fleet, especially since Russia has no credible second front to worry about?

Japan’s only real chance to gain VCs is HAW and AUS…both of which can be easily defended by the US.

Even if Japan ignores the US and goes full ground against Russia, parking a fleet in SZ 60, the US simply builds ICs in the Islands once taken and starts harrassing the Japanese coast.

I agree that Japan must play conservative…but I fail to see how doing so gains the VCs necessary to win, especially since you both advocate Germany splitting it’s focus onto two fronts, making it that much more difficult to make a significant breakthrough.

I’ve been playing AARe face to face with some friends for a while now, and I’m starting to think Japan is too weak.

In AAR, Japans strength lies in it’s ability to expand quickly and get up to an income level high enough to match US Pacific fleet purchases. If the US spends all it’s money countering Japan, then Germany has much less to worry about, and with luck can hold Africa for an extended period of time.

In AARe, a select few movements by Russia and Britain (Stack Bury, inf to Sink, Kwan tranny, possibly Sol Sub and Borneo), coupled with the Non-Agression treaty, and solid naval NAs for America, pretty much ensure that Japan has no chance for early expansion, and thus cannot stop the US from gaining a naval advantage and taking the Island territories.

Of the last four games played, three have been Allied victories where Japan had lost all it’s Island income. Japan is usually outnumbered navally by round 4. The US can throw it’s fleet away in a suicidal attack and still win the game, since the US can afford to replace it’s fleet losses while the Japanese cannot. This is especially true if Britain built an India or Australia IC, since Britain can then follow up with attacks on Japanese islands before Japan even gets a chance to respond to the US attack the previous round.

I’m almost of the opinon that the Non-Aggression treaty should be revised or eliminated. I think it hamstrings the Japanese so much that not only is it extremely difficult to win, but it is also not much fun to play…I know my friends and I have been dreading being stuck with Japan when we bid, and bids have been edging upwards over these last few games.

Thoughts?

My two cents…well, more like eight cents.

1. I would never build an IC in Egypt…British IPCs are needed elsewhere. North Africa should be handled by troops transported from England, or optimally by Americans.

2. I have built an IC in E. Canada. It was an evil game that saw horrid luck on the dice for the Allies and repeated Japanese landings into Alaska and W. Canada. This factory provided some needed troops to fight the Japanese, and was later able to sustain ten-unit landings for Britain against Germany once Japan had switched tactics.

Obviously building an IC in Canada is a rare occurence.

3. I am NOT a fan of an India IC. In order to hold it, one must present a credible threat to Japanese island income with a large US Pacific fleet, otherwise the Japanese have the freedom to utilize their fleet and full air-force, in addition to ground forces, to capture the IC.

Once you have that US fleet, why switch Allied focus to mainland Asia??

4. South Africa is an intriguing option, but again, one must present a credible US Pac fleet threat, or the Japanese will take it from you instead of the Germans.

Too often have I liberated Africa from the Germans, only to see it fall to the Japanese a round or two later because there was no credible challenge to the Jap fleet in the Pacific.

5. Australia is the best choice in my opinon. Like South Africa or India, it requires a US Pac fleet to support it. Unlike the other two locations, however, it is close enough to the US to ensure that the two can support one another in the early stages of the game. This IC also puts the Allies in the best possible position to whittle down Japanese income.

The Japanese start with 9 IPCs on the Mainland, and 13 on the islands (not counting Japan)…I’d rather be safe and in a position to take those 13 IPCs than under constant threat and only in position to take 9 IPCs.

…that’s all I got.  :-P

@Cmdr:

Could be fun.  My thoughts are that Japan was probably pretty well contained as it was and England and America were busy beating the German’s up giving Russia free time and extra money to buy this naval equipment, right?

Very correct.

Britains first turn in the Pacific was perfect (Borneo, NG taken…Jap sub and tranny sunk), and Japan’s attacks in his subsequent turn were disastrous…4 of 6 Jap fighters dead by the end of his turn.

Germany also never took any of Africa…failed to take Egypt in Rd 1 due to extremely lucky dice on Britain’s part. This, coupled with the +5 IPCs from Japan, put England in excellent position for Rd 2.

Russia started building one sub per round around rd 5-6, right as both US and UK were finally fully set up to land in Germany or WEU with 8 units per round each. Rd 8 or 9 Russia builds AC/Tran…Rd 9 or 10, WEU and SEU fall…Axis conceded the following round.

I recently played a game where Russian navy played a significant role.

Around mid-game, Russia started cranking out one sub per round. German fighters were far too busy dealing with US/UK landings in WEU, so the subs stuck around.

After Russia had amassed three subs, he then plunked down a carrier and two transports, having saved money, and landed fighters.

With 1 AC, 2 Tran, 3 Subs, and 2 Figs…the Russian fleet was too strong for German airforce to take on alone. The German BB was long since sunk, and the Russians had a clear path to Rome.

With America landing in Western, Britain in position to strike Germany (The Baltic fleet being a shadow of it’s former self), and Russia threatening Rome, Germany had too much to do. He pulled back on the East front, and the combined pressure on all three victory cities prevented him from retaking Rome from the Russians.

By the end of the next round, it was all over except the parades in Red Square!

Anyone else have ANY success stories about the Russian Navy???

@axis_roll:

I can understand the source of your confusion.  I look at the very first sentence of the third bullet point:

@A&ARe:

Your BBs now fire as AA Guns do

AA guns do not fire in combat (unless you have rockets… no BB’s can NOT become the rockets of the sea :)  )

I’m not looking to use them as rockets…I want to know if my BBs get to shoot at the planes on my enemies carrier if I attack him, instead of him attacking me.

Also…

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showpost.php?p=192866&postcount=8

LAND COMBAT SEQUENCE

1. Place Units on Battle Board
2. Conduct Opening Fire
2a. Roll for any FTR Interceptors (Jet Fighters) - 1st cycle only
-For SBR and Rocket attacks only. FTRs may still defend against Regular attacks
-Roll one die/intercepting FTR. Casualties are removed IMMEDIATELY if hit
2b. Roll for AAGuns - 1st cycle only
-FTRs, and BMBRs are all rolled separately and removed IMMEDIATELY if hit
2c. Roll for Bombardment (BBs and Combined Arms DDs) - 1st cycle only
-Casualties are removed at the end of Opening Fire.
2d. Roll for any German 88s - 1st cycle only
-Any attacking Ger 88 RTL roll 1 die @3
-Casualties are removed at the end of Opening Fire
3. Remove Opening Fire Casualties
-Remove all Bombardment and German 88 casualties
4. Attacking Units Fire
5. Defending Units Fire
6. Remove Casualties
7. Press Attack or Retreat
8. Capture Territory

NAVAL COMBAT SEQUENCE

1. Place Units on Battle Board
1a. Declare targets for any Kamis or Kaitens - 1st cycle only
1b. Attempt Sub Detection - 1st cycle only
-Each SUB is assigned a DD-to-detect value, starting with a baseline of 3, and taking into account positive modifiers (AIR,LRA,CA) which increase the DD-to-detect value of all SUBs and negative modifiers (SS, Kaitens) which decrease the DD-to-detect value of only certain SUBs. When groups of DDs have different positive modifiers they should be rolled separately. When groups of SUBs have different negative modifiers, it becomes possible that the higher DD-to-detect value group is detected, but not the lower DD-to-detect value group.
-Roll 1 die for each attacking DD, a roll of the DD-to-detect value or less detects ALL defending SUBs requiring that DD-to-detect value
-Roll 1 die for each defending DD, a roll of the DD-to-detect value or less detects ALL attacking SUBs requiring that DD-to-detect value
2. Conduct Opening Fire
2a. Roll for any FTR Interceptors (Jet Fighters) - 1st cycle only
-For Kami attacks only. FTRs may still defend against Regular attacks
-Roll one die/intercepting FTR. Casualties (Kamis) are removed IMMEDIATELY if hit
2b. Combined Arms BBs - 1st cycle only
-Kamis, FTRs and BMBRs are all rolled separately and removed IMMEDIATELY if hit
2c. Roll for Coastal Defense (Atlantic Wall) - 1st cycle only
-A single Ger RTL in WEur rolls 1 die @ 2 (3 with Ger 88s)
-Casualties are removed at the end of Opening Fire
2d. Roll for Kaitens - 1st cycle only
-Attacking Kaitens roll 1 die @ 3 (4 with Super Subs)
-Kaitens and casualties are removed at the end of Opening Fire
2e. Roll for Kamis - 1st cycle only
-Attacking Kamis roll 1 die @ 4
-Kamis and casualties are removed at the end of Opening Fire
2f. Roll for Regular SUBs (ie. non-Kaiten)
-Attacking SUBs roll 1 die @ 2 (3 with Super Subs)
-Defending SUBs roll 1 die @ 2
-Casualties are removed as per Step 3
3. Remove Opening Fire Casualties
-Remove all Kaitens and their casualties (regardless of whether Kaitens were detected or not)
-Remove all Kamis and their casualties
-If Attacking SUBs were “Undetected”, remove all their casualties during this step(enemy DD does not cancel this). If “Detected”, their casualties return fire and are removed in step 6.
-If Defending SUBs were “Undetected”, remove all their casualties during this step(enemy DD does not cancel this). If “Detected”, their casualties return fire and are removed in step 6.
3a. “Undetected” SUBs may submerge - 1st cycle only
-Any “Undetected” SUBs not electing to submerge are considered “Detected” at this point
-Combat resumes as per normal rules from here on out
4. Attacking Units Fire
5. Defending Units Fire
6. Remove Casualties
7. Press Attack or Retreat
-SUBs may submerge again here, but since they’re now all “Detected”, enemy DDs can cancel this. As per regular rules, SUBs may also retreat with the rest of your naval vessels.
8. Occupy SZ

…your statement that AA guns do not fire in combat confuses me greatly.  :?

In AARe, can Combined Arms BBs fire as AA guns on both offense and defense, or is it strictly a defensive capability?

–-

5. Combined Arms
-Your DDs can now conduct bombardment at 3 during an amphibious assault
-Enemy SUBs’ DD-to-detect values increase by 1
-Your BBs now fire as AAGuns do. During any Combat Move phase where an enemy air unit enters or flies over a territory containing a BB, the BB rolls 1 die at 1 for each attacking air unit (first cycle of combat only). Casualties are removed IMMEDIATELY in Opening Fire. Only 1BB/ territory may fire. BBs still get their regular roll during the Defending Units Fire Phase.

–-

The Green underlined portions seem to suggest that the technology can be used offensively, while the Red portions suggest that it is defensive only.

So…  :?

I find KJF easier in AARe anyways, so I am a big advocate of an Australian IC with that rule set.

Techs should not be discounted. I have seen many games where effective use of them resulted in an easy win, or a surprise comeback.

Combined Arms can be utilized to devastating effectiveness against Japan. Nearly any nation (except Russia…but especially Germany)can benefit from Long Range Aircraft or Jets.

The game starts out with 12 Axis fighters and 11 Allied fighters on the board.

The side that loses parity in fighters with their opponent is often the one that loses the game.

@Lucifer:

Sail the UK pac fleet to the med

This is why Germany MUST attack Egypt on turn 1…you don’t want British navy in the Med, and you certainly don’t want to rob Japan of the chance to kill those ships off.

I’ve honestly never played a game where Germany didn’t take Egypt on it’s first turn…even with no bid, Germany has always dedicated air-force or BB + Transported units to ensure victory.

@Lucifer:

Russian sub blocks sz 12 or sz 6.

I’d block SZ 6, the Baltic fleet is the larger threat.

What about the German sub in SZ 1??

I recently played a game where a three attack Russian turn consisting of Ukraine, W. Russia, and Eastern Europe actually wound up working well.

Granted the dice were in my favor, and I lost a lot of offensive pieces on Germany’s subsequent turn, but my attack and Germany’s counter wound up costing Germany more offensive pieces than he could really afford to lose. Combined with a KGF focus, it wound up doing much to help the Allies win that game.

If you want to play it more conservatively, then the OP has a solid R1 posted already.  :-)

@Cmdr:

1)  Russian Winter - Infantry defend at 3 or less for one round declared by Russia in their collect income phase.

Not bad.  But honestly, I think this is too easily countered by not making an aggressive move on Russia.  To me, this is best used by Russia when they expect an attack by the Axis and only to inflict massive casualties so the Americans and British can hopefully recover the war effort.  This really is not going to help out for those little battles where you have 1 or 2 infantry defending.  2 Infantry + Fighter is still going to kill a “tank” just like they would an infantryman.

However, if you have 30 infantry in Russia turning them all into “tanks” could inflict enough damage on the Axis they only win marginally instead of decisively.  (I don’t know anyone who attacks Moscow for a marginal victory, so I assume you would have had a decisive victory.)

At best, it delays the game by a round allowing you to get some more Russians, British and Americans to Moscow.

In my opinion, this advantage isn’t worth much. The threat of it’s use is much more useful for the Allies than actually using it.

A smart Axis player(s) won’t walk into a trap they can see…as you said, it’s only good if you can use it decisively in a fight for Moscow.

2. Non-Aggression Treaty

This seems to have some ambiguities.

1)  Does Japanese Rocket fire violate the treaty?

2)  Do Japanese SBRs violate the treaty?

3)  If Japan attacks a territory with Russian units in it, does this violate the treaty?

4)  Can Russia counter attack territories that are not orange without violating the treaty?

As for one and two, I’d say yes these violate the treaty.  You have to violate Russian air space to engage in these attacks, thus you have attacked Russia.

As for 3 and 4 I’d say no.  You are not attacking an orange or red territory, thus you may freely counter attack the Japanese and the Japanese can freely kill Russians who get in the way without breaking the treaty.

I think Enhanced rules clear up all the ambiguities quite nicely…but not sure how/if that applies to 1.3.

3. Mobile Industry

Again, some ambiguities.

1)  Can Russia move the IC to Russian controlled territories, or only red territories?

2)  Can Russia move the IC to Moscow and have two ICs on the same territory?

In both instances I’d say yes.  The National Advantage, in effect, makes the IC similar to an AA Gun and you can have more then one AA Gun per territory, but you can only use one gun at a time.  So if Russia had two Industrial Complexes in Caucasus, then they would be limited to 4 units purchased.

As for moving into Russian controlled enemy territory, well, it’s Russian territory!  It may not be red, but it is still Russian.  And if the Complex is taken by the enemy and liberated under an ally, and that territory is no longer Russian controlled, well, then you just lost an IC to an Ally.

Again…I tend to defer to Enhanced rules for this one.

I don’t like this NA much anyways. Where else can you move it to where it’s useful? Ukraine? Kazakstan? Options are rather limited, but…you CAN move the ICs to 1 IPC territories and deny them to the Axis if things get that bad. It’ll tick them off!

4. Salvage

To be honest, this is the worst National Advantage in the game.  I’ve only gotten this once, and that’s because I had a stellar defense of Russia against the Germans which netted me an extra tank that died to Japan.

Salvage sucks! I’ve NEVER gotten a tank from it, EVER.

That’s another reason I like Enhanced…tanks defending on 4’s in Red territories.  :-D

5. Lend-Lease

Seems to me that LHTR moved to nerf this from something else.  One british and one american unit can add up over time, provided you manage to get one there every round.  Perhaps this should be adjusted to just say two allied units totalling 10 IPC or less.  That would be a fighter or 2 tanks or tank, inf, or inf, art, etc.

Sorry, just trying to think of a way to salvage the lend-lease a bit.

Again…I dig Enhanced.  :-P

But in 1.3…this is still a great NA, if only because you can give Russia a really powerful fighter force that buys you LOTS of time.

6. Railway

Okay, neat idea.  Not expansive enough, IMHO.  If you could extend that rail from SFE to Caucasus then I think we’d have something. (SFE to Yakut to Novosibirsk to Russia to Caucasus.)

Kinda useful in KJF mode though!

It can be very useful in KJF…I had the misfortune of being Japan when I saw it for the first time, and it frustrated me to no end.

Enhanced is awesome though…BURY-YAK-NOVO-MOS-CAU-WRU-KAR. It makes keeping Karelia early a possibility instead of a suicide tactic.

…I dig NA topics. Perhaps a thread for every country??

@ncscswitch:

The defending FIG does not have the choice to retreat.  It remains until the end of the battle.

The only time the defending FIG move comes into play is if the FIG survives the battle either by
A) the attacker is destroyed or
B) the attacker retreats.

Well hell…my friends and I have been doing that one all wrong for quite a while now!  :-P

Ya learn something every day.  :-)

@ncscswitch:

Right, it actually does not land until the end of ALL combat.

So in your example, it COULD land in India, IF India did not fall to the enemy that turn.

If India did fall, and there was not an allied AC in a SZ adjacent to SZ35, then the FIG would die.

A couple follow-ups…

1. Does the fighter still roll defense in the SZ combat before retreating?

2. The fighter can retreat regardless of how many attacking units remain in the SZ combat, correct? (This is the only instance of a defending unit “retreating” from a battle without being shot at that I can think of)

Using Enhanced rules has really altered how I use America, especially with Britain and Russia both having lend-lease NAs.

US Tech-dice NA is nice too.

You almost don’t need to send ground troops…just give Russia fighters, UK destroyers, and roll up those tech dice so your allies can upgrade their equipment for a far lesser cost.

As for regular LHTR, I prefer America to focus on Africa while UK goes for Norway. This gives Germany three opponents in “three” directions, and allows Russia the greatest degree of flexibility to defend against Japan.

I actually used this in a game a few weeks ago. America was placing his focus on the Pacific, and GB and Russia were being kicked around by Germany (mainly due to NAs).

Since Japan was weak on the ground in Asia, we decided to abandon Moscow two turns before it would have been captured by Germany. A large, mixed Russian force was able to liberate India (giving Britain an IC) and eventually kick Japan off of the mainland with aid from American landings in Bury. The 8 INF built in Moscow did nothing to slow Germany down, but Japan was reduced to only Japan and valueless islands by that point. With Japan unable to do much of anything, Germany tried to take London before America could transfer more fleet to the Atlantic. It didn’t work, and cost him most of his airforce.

We won the game by concession, and we never did retake Moscow.  :-P

The Indies and Borneo had petroleum and rubber resources far more vital to the Japanese war effort than any single resource Australia had.

Despite Australia’s larger overall economy, the Indies had more of what Japan needed most.

One must remember that the Japanese war against the U.S. and Europe was primarily to secure resources to fuel the ongoing occupation of China.

There was no reason to overextend to Australia when what was needed was much closer to home. The Japanese efforts against India and Australia were to improve Japan’s defensive position against the Allies, not gain additional territory, resources, or subjects.