Axis can win on either side by collecting victory cities. Three of four scenarios have a win for the axis - therefore 75%
Allies on the other hand have to take all three capitals. That means they have to win on both sides - that’s only in one of those four scenarios, therefore 25%.
You were right. The retreat everything into a single territory rule only applies to land units and planes can land wherever they wish. (Provided it’s a legal landing spot of course)
I’m not sure on the exact language from the rule book but I think that sums up the essence of the rule.
Unfortunately, even if they were legal SZs, all but the Great Lakes and Lake Ladoga would still be illegal because you couldn’t place an IC in an adjacent territory…
:-D :-D :-D
However, I did place a massive stack of Soviet Battleships in Lake Baikal one game, it took longer than you might expect for the opponent to notice!!
:lol: :lol:
Usually Germany stealmates around moscow around G7 with US and GB Eur slowly advancing on the West.
My question is: do you play to take moscow (so a medium game) or do you play on the income and play in the long term (14-15 turns)?
Not being able to take Moscow and having the Allies in France isn’t that big a deal for Germany if:
-Germany isn’t going to lose Berlin
-Italy isn’t going to lose Rome
-USSR is down to a few IPCs of income
-Japan is thriving in the Pacific
Germany should be able to hold off Britain and America long enough that Japan grows to match American income and either wins or forces some pressure (from America) off of Germany.
Maybe Germany is overestimating the Western Allies’ forces? From what I read, KJF is the preferred USA strategy, which means they won’t have much to devote to Europe. Of course, if the Japan play is ineffective, that’s a whole different issue. But it seems from earlier posts that Japan usually does well in your games.
Taking Moscow quickly is not the only way to win. Taking Russia’s income works as well, and has the added effect of turning the economic balance toward the Axis.
@Herr:
My specific reason for buying that sub is, to kill the SZ111 UK battleship G2, while keeping the German battleship alive. On G1, I like to to take out SZ110, but only strafe SZ111, and then retreat the German battleship. Ideally, this would leave the UK with only a damaged battleship in SZ111, and that battleship can’t escape from the range of the German sub and bombers. But I’d rather not loose a bomber when attacking the battleship G2, so that’s where the sub comes in.
If the strafe doesn’t quite go as well - say that the UK cruiser has also survived - then as Germany, I still have a fair chance of killing both ships with 2 bombers plus the sub if the ships stay together. Or, if they split, I’ll probably just go after the battleship and leave the cruiser alone.It’s always best to destroy the uk batt G1 even if you lose your own batt uk1. The allies can easily make it so you either have a low odds fight g2 to destroy the batt or you have to use so many planes to scramble protect you are light in planes for other objectives like the med uk navy counter. Also, the uk will likely use their destroyer as fodder in the counter against the batt and any surviving subs, which means when u destroy it g2, if it happened to survive uk1, the sub u purchased g1 can take the 125sz NO from ussr without any counter. Also, the uk will need to use planes with that destroyer to defeat the fleet left in 111, which means they might go a little light in some med battles, which can open up opportunities there for italy if you have above average dice in those battles.
Are you referring to ignoring sz 110 and instead of strafing 111 you suggest to take it instead?
If you ignore either SZ you’re leaving a battleship alive so probably that’s not what aagamerz13 was going for.
However, responding to aagamerz13, I doubt that leaving a British BB alive would hurt you in the short term, especially if you can keep your own alive. There’s not much Britain can do with it early on, maybe it can go to the Mediterranean to help defeat Italy but britain usually is able to make Italy a non factor even without the BB.
The Ethiopia attack goes bad about 30% iirc. Without a bid, I don’t reckon it is worth it.tutor most powerful unit, the artillery, can’t retreat because it had come in amphibiously.
It may be worth it if the axis j1 Dow and you build an ic in Egypt. That way you keep the Indian tt alive and also you don’t need to build one in Persia uk2. You need the j1 dow to make sea lion that much more difficult.
But if you don’t attack it then the Italians can scatter and threaten the loss of the UK objective for turn 2. I say it’s better to kill them when they’re all in one spot rather than doing three/four smaller battles where things can go bad quickly with bad dice.
You’re definitely right about the bid though, I am in favor of using it on an artillery that can attack Ethiopia to make the battle more in the Brits’ favor.
@Elsass-Lorraine:
I do it, along with Taranto. No Tobruk. I usually try to bid an artillery in Sudan so I can take Persia with the Indian transport. I use the cruiser for bombard in Ethiopia as well.
At what point as UK, do you not do Taranto anymore?
Always Taranto. Those Italian boats are unparalleled assets in the Med that need to be destroyed in my opinion. Ethiopia is also very important, it takes priority over Persia turn 1. I hope that answered your question, I was a little confused at what you meant.
I do it, along with Taranto. No Tobruk. I usually try to bid an artillery in Sudan so I can take Persia with the Indian transport. I use the cruiser for bombard in Ethiopia as well.
Did you attack the 8 undefended tanks in Baltic States?
You should consider attacking Baltic States, they don’t have much else tank-wise on the eastern front besides what is in that territory. Maybe use the stuff in Leningrad that has been cut off.