Japan versatile country which has to act agressively in most games.

Yes that´s more or less the strategy 98% of the German players use in G1, but you should also take the bomber from Berlin, not only one fig…

Normally you know which casualties are going first (like Infantry before Armor), but if there is a questionable situation you just ask your opponent which of his units goes first (email).
Both players see the same gameboard because:
You open a new game and play as the Allies (assuming no bid).
You make your Russia turn and save the game.
You attach the file with the saved game to an email and send it to  your opponent.
He does his German move, saves and sends the new save back to you,……

A very interesting rule. It will also stop your enemy from building up too much infantry fortresses  :evil: :-D

Sankt Hallvard is true there.

concerning 2: You can only load units into transports if the units haven´t moved so far. And if you offload them, their whole move is completed.

@ncscswitch:

It is a game design issue… and it makes as much (or more) sense than attacking a contested sea zone (one with both enemy and allied ships present) that your alliles are miraculously absent during your attack, even though there ships are right there with you in the same sea zone.  The main argument made against that was that the allied ships are never placed on the Battle Board, and thus cannot participate in the battle.

Or as much sense that a defender cannot retreat.
Or that you can’t violate Neutrals
Or that you can collect income from newly captured territory but can;t land AF there.

Yes but the other things make at least sense, because of the games´ balance.
But rules are rules.

I agree with you in all points except 6. which is IMO a logical nonsense if you act as the rules tell you. For Example: There are enemy Bombers flying over Berlin, but the Germans can´t fire at them, because the Bombers have been bombing Rome and are now “just” on their way home. They fliy over hunreds of German AAs, but no one fires, because the fight is already over.  :-D :-o :?
This would be quite strange, if it occured in WW2.

@Jennifer:

There’s no point in hitting Ukraine if you don’t kill the German fighter, IMHO; Noob.

That´s true, you neither kill the fighter nor do you get the territorry, all you do is to kil poor inf pieces (or maybe a tank).

@newpaintbrush:

I often see 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf at Belorussia with expected USSR win result; that’s 2 IPC as opposed to the Ukr 3 IPC.  So what you’re saying is that you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and West Russia . . . as opposed to JUST invading West Russia (and doing nothing else).  Isn’t that what you mean?

How does Belorus “block your attack”?  With a German bid of 1-2 infantry there?

Germany counterattacks anyways, always; it’s part of early territory trading.  Isn’t that right?  I don’t think Germany is FORCED to counterattack Ukraine; it’s just a convenient and vulnerable target; wouldn’t you agree?

As far as Caucasus being threatened G1 and G2 - I feel that it is impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G1, and even with a West Russia/Belorussia attack instead of a West Russia/Ukraine attack, I feel that it is still near impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G2.  (Note that under both situations, Germany lost the West Russia forces and three additional infantry).  If Germany attacks Caucasus on G1, even if USSR has nothing there and Germany moves everything in, and Japan sends fighters in, USSR can still counterattack in force, and Germany can NOT hold, or even seriously counterattack the Caucasus forces.  Much the same holds for a G1 attack and hold on the Ukraine; any early attack there risks a heavy hit and run from West Russia.  For that reason, I think the G2 take and hold of Caucasus is not possible, because I believe that any take and hold will require massed German forces in the Ukraine or West Russia on the previous turn, and I don’t see either happening on G1.  I will say that an aggressive G2 attack on Caucasus supported by reinforcing Japanese fighters is possibly feasible, but it will be impossible for that to happen unless Japan makes severe sacrifices in the Pacific, and even then I think any G2 invasion of Caucasus would be risky given a USSR build of infantry, artillery, and tanks, for maybe USSR forces of 12 inf 3 art 4 tanks.

No I meant its better to take Wru and Ukr. instead of Wru and Belo. Its quite obvious why:
1. The 1IPC more  :wink:
2. The German fighter
3. German Tank
4. prevention of attack in Caucus
5. It makes it harder for Germany to do its attacks (because of the lost fighter)

It sometimes happens because of bad dice that Germany blocks your Belorus attack even without bid and with a bid of 1 Inf the chances get higher for you to be unsuccesful (as Russia I´m not willing to sacrifice my fighter formy Infantry piece if I´m hit to often)

Because of Ukr being such a voulnerable target Ger is forced to attack there, so this goes hand in hand.

With “threaten Caucasus” I don´t mean that Germany can attack it and stay there until the end of the game, but if R looses caucasus in G1 they have to produce in Russia, it decreases Russia´s attack rapidity and they can´t act against the axis so effectively, because they have got to get hold of Caucasus again 1st.

I´ve seen Germany often to reattack and hold Ukr on G1 so this isn´t that complicated. It´s true that R could counter, but in most games they don´t because they would loose the whole Wru stack ( so basically their whole army in the west) either in the attack or next round, after the German counterattack.
Ger is also in most games in TJ in G2 and so you have to defend Caucus from the South and West with a small army only.

The problem is that many Ger. players put their bid into Africa or buy a trn in the med (if bid= 8+).
If they do that you can´t pull of a really effective counterattack with Uk, because there are too much units in Anglo.