Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Antw: [wifdiscussion] Re: More on the Battle of the Atlantic

Expand Messages
  • zpmu061
    i doubt that. will ge not align finland because rumania, bulga and hungary all led to a chit? harold p.s. i believe toxic gas is lif past. ... will stop his
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
      i doubt that. will ge not align finland because rumania, bulga and
      hungary all led to a chit?

      harold

      p.s. i believe toxic gas is lif past.

      --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@...> wrote:
      >
      > I can assure that if the first 3 city conquered gives US a chit, JP
      will stop his attack...
    • zpmu061
      assumes partisans 2d10 almost presumes divs and guns. imo attack weakness yes/no is negligible in the beginning but i might be wrong. maybe chinas solutionis
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
        assumes partisans

        2d10 almost presumes divs and guns.

        imo attack weakness yes/no is negligible in the beginning but i might
        be wrong. maybe chinas solutionis to counterattack early ...

        harold

        --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@...> wrote:
        >
        > if you do not play with partisan, or play with chinese attack
        weakness and engineers and div and gun, it changes also several things.
        >
      • zpmu061
        its you call. harold ... to ... geared ... Only ... were ... wants, ... Jap ... harden ... to ... is ... seen ... after ... how ... of ... russia ... turn; ...
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
          its you call. harold

          --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "kenzclark" <kenzclark@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > That's why the USSR needs to help out?
          >
          > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "zpmu061"
          > <harold.m.martin-vignerte@> wrote:
          > >
          > > we will disagree on this one for eternity :)
          > >
          > > so for the record, encore:
          > >
          > > - with the 2d10 (incl. auto hq-support)
          > > - no russian intervention
          > > - concentrated jp effort
          > > - barring unusual luck
          > >
          > > china is toast or mutilated to impotency
          > >
          > > harold
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert Gratz"
          > > <Herbert.Gratz@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > I've never defended behind the river so far. Alwasy in the
          > > mountains. I've never lost a China and only seen it once happen
          to
          > > another guy. Don't know if I am lucky/opponents bad/options
          geared
          > > to making it difficult. Assume you play with Warlords?
          > > >
          > > > >>> applehammond@ 27.02.2006 19:20 >>>
          > > > The 4 games I've played I have seen China crushed every time.
          Only
          > > > one didn't have partisans. One was WiF deluxe the other three
          were
          > > > classic. By crushing China I don't necessarily mean a complete
          > > > conquest. Save a factory or two, let China surrender if she
          wants,
          > > > in which case the USA doesn't get the extra chit. Leave enough
          Jap
          > > > units in country to finish China off when it gets close to USA
          > > DOW.
          > > > In the meantime, Japan has about 15 extra ground units to
          harden
          > > the
          > > > Pacific perimeter, invade Australia or India, invade
          > > Siberia...many
          > > > options.
          > > >
          > > > I never set China up on the coast. I don't think you should
          > > concede
          > > > the hexes behind the river in Central China, though. You have
          to
          > > > make Japan fight for that extra layer of hexes because there
          is
          > > only
          > > > one row of mountain hexes east of Chungking. Maybe I have
          > > benefitted
          > > > from playing some excellent "Japanese" players...but I have
          seen
          > > > China dismantled all to easy. Especially by going straight
          after
          > > > Chunking though that single layer of Mountains.
          > > >
          > > > Japan has to be willing to burn the oil in order to do it, but
          > > taking
          > > > out China IMO is not difficult. OTOH I'll be anxious to see
          how
          > > the
          > > > dynamic of the war in China changes when the computer WiF is
          > > finished
          > > > with the European scale.
          > > >
          > > > John
          > > >
          > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com , IA-211-BZ < IA211@ .>
          wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > It seems to me that there is a gap between europe and the US.
          > > > >
          > > > > in one atlantic side, allies often win in convention and are
          > > > considered as being advantaged by the rules, on the other side
          of
          > > the
          > > > ocean it is axis...
          > > > >
          > > > > seems to me to be balanced, in fact ;op
          > > > >
          > > > > About your example, it is very hard for germany to crush
          russia
          > > > if allied powers send it 10 BPs and several ressources per
          turn;
          > > > > About china, any bad dice roll will kill several japanese
          army,
          > > > and will lead to trouble for japanese. Do you play with
          partisan?
          > > If
          > > > you find china is too easily crushed, try it...
          > > > > another remark, never try to defend the coast, put your
          defense
          > > > line in mountain with double stack, and wait and see for 1943.
          > > Last
          > > > remark, several player argued that loosing china early can be
          > > good,
          > > > you get 3.5 US entry plus a 0.3 per conquered town and a +2 to
          > > > declare war, enough to ensure an earlier US war and production
          > > boost.
          > > > The sooner you get your option, the sooner you get some PM
          boost,
          > > the
          > > > sooner you go to total war, the sooner you get your annual
          +.25 PM
          > > > boost.
          > > > >
          > > > > imagine you got it 2 turns earlier than historical, it
          represent
          > > > 10 BP for 1941 for 2 turns, same in 1942, 1943, and 1944, so
          it is
          > > 80
          > > > BP worth of good americans unit while china produce 2-4 BPs
          worth
          > > of
          > > > poor units because of strat bombing...
          > > > >
          > > > > I'm not an adept of "let china die" strategy, so please do
          not
          > > > argue about thepro and con of this strategy, but i want to
          point
          > > out
          > > > that crushing china did not means an axis victory, especially
          with
          > > > partisans.
          > > > >
          > > > > hubert
          > > > >
          > > > > John Hammond < applehammond@ .> a écrit :
          > > > > I've only been playing for a few years, but I have come to
          the
          > > > > conclusion that the game is imblanced in favor of the Axis.
          This
          > > > is
          > > > > based on two observations: 1. Germany can destroy Russia
          with a
          > > > > concerted effort as long as they don't get terrible weather
          > > rolls
          > > > or
          > > > > short summer turns, and 2. Japan can easily take out China
          with
          > > > > average or better combat rolls. Combine that with the 15 or
          so
          > > > > objective cities the Axis need to win in a 0 bid game and it
          > > > strikes
          > > > > me as odd that you would do anything to help the Germans
          sink
          > > > convoys
          > > > > in the Atlantic, or interfere with Allied Lend Lease help to
          > > > Russia.
          > > > > If there is a disincentive for Germans pursuing a BoA
          because
          > > they
          > > > > are too busy crushing the USSR, don't make it easier to also
          > > crush
          > > > > Great Britain!
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com , "Michael Burke"
          > > > > <MichaelMVB@> wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Lane has excellent points to his argument. Eric Sedlar and
          I
          > > > have
          > > > > been playing alot of WiF
          > > > > > lately on CyberBoard and we think so little of the Battle
          of
          > > the
          > > > > Atlantic (because of the
          > > > > > rules bias) we have started using a House Rule to fix the
          > > > problem.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > This House Rule is every Active Major Power (Not Vichy
          France)
          > > > get
          > > > > 1 Free Naval move per
          > > > > > Turn. This naval move can happen during any impulse, but
          can
          > > not
          > > > > be saved from turn to
          > > > > > turn. It was designed to give an incentive for the Germans
          to
          > > > > build their subs. We
          > > > > > combine this House Rule with another House Rule where
          Germany
          > > > gets
          > > > > 2 naval moves on a
          > > > > > Combined. As well thought out Lane's arguments are, Lane
          > > forgot
          > > > to
          > > > > include the most
          > > > > > egregious disincentive for a BoA is the lack of naval
          moves
          > > for
          > > > > Germany. To properly
          > > > > > execute a BoA, Germany essentially needs 2.5 naval moves
          per
          > > > turn.
          > > > > 1 Naval move to
          > > > > > move German subs out from Brest or other Atlantic major
          ports.
          > > > 2nd
          > > > > naval move is to
          > > > > > move out replacement and reinforments subs that arrive
          from
          > > > Kiel.
          > > > > The half naval move is
          > > > > > an approximation of another sub move for aborted subs that
          are
          > > > > aborted and reorged or
          > > > > > moving out the German surface fleet that forces the Allies
          to
          > > > guard
          > > > > their convoys with
          > > > > > higher surface factors as was historical when the Germans
          had
          > > > > capital ships in Brest and
          > > > > > Norway.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > This extra Naval Move allows subs/ships that use this free
          > > naval
          > > > > move to search even
          > > > > > when the Major Power is taking a Land or Air. Only the
          > > > subs/ships
          > > > > that moved with the
          > > > > > Free Naval Move get to search, thus units already at sea
          can't
          > > be
          > > > > flipped to search, but can
          > > > > > be involved per normal naval rules if their is a
          successful
          > > > search
          > > > > from other units in the
          > > > > > sea zone.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > When you combine these 2 very simple House Rules, you
          > > massively
          > > > > encourage Germany to
          > > > > > build and use her subs. This doesn't necessarily change a
          Barb
          > > > 41
          > > > > strategy other than
          > > > > > taking a few BPs out of the equation and focused on the
          CW. It
          > > > > makes the game much
          > > > > > more historical and most importantly allows Germany to
          execute
          > > a
          > > > > proper Battle of the
          > > > > > Atlantic even when being forced to take Lands against
          Russia.
          > > > Now,
          > > > > Germany only needs 1
          > > > > > Combined, plus their Free Naval move and Germany will have
          all
          > > > the
          > > > > necessary naval
          > > > > > moves it needs to engage the Allies all over the Atlantic.
          > > > Italian
          > > > > subs can also be built, but
          > > > > > now their role will become secondary where they will be
          doing
          > > the
          > > > > searches when Germany
          > > > > > isn't using its Free Naval and will pair up with German
          subs
          > > > using
          > > > > an Italian naval or
          > > > > > combined to do the searches for the Axis.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Of course, all of this isn't just pro-BoA or pro-Axis. All
          > > > Active
          > > > > Major Powers get 1 Free
          > > > > > Naval move per turn which gives alot of flexibility to
          > > everyone.
          > > > > Frees up the Allies
          > > > > > somewhat for small invasions or emergency transporting
          units
          > > to
          > > > > active theatres. Even
          > > > > > gives the Japanese some more flexibility and can even help
          the
          > > > > Italians a bit. Also allows
          > > > > > the Russians to move out their subs when taking a Land.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Overall, Eric and I have been very pleased with these
          simple
          > > > > changes to the rules. We both
          > > > > > have decided to build massive German subs in addition to
          the
          > > > usual
          > > > > Italian subs. There
          > > > > > have been many more sub combats and the CW has been forced
          to
          > > > build
          > > > > out many more
          > > > > > convoys and escorting NAVs. More of the CW fleet has been
          > > > assigned
          > > > > to ASW duty and
          > > > > > strong American help is needed in 1941.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > As to Lane's recommendation of free ASW going from 2 to 5,
          I
          > > > still
          > > > > agree this is a poor
          > > > > > change of rules for WiF. A better solution might be a free
          CVL
          > > > > reinforcement with piloted
          > > > > > CVP each turn for both the CW and USA starting in 1943.
          This
          > > > > essentially will model the
          > > > > > same thing, but require the naval moves and oil
          expenditure
          > > Lane
          > > > > correctly asserts is
          > > > > > missing with the rule change. In addition, it will see
          more of
          > > > > these types of units make it
          > > > > > on map which is lacking in my WiF games.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Finally, none of these new rules have been play-tested
          with
          > > > Convoy
          > > > > or Cruisers in Flames.
          > > > > > Eric and I quickly came to the conclusion both new sets
          added
          > > > more
          > > > > complexity and
          > > > > > counters and most importantly extra TIME to count, move,
          and
          > > > fight
          > > > > with the units with
          > > > > > little if any added historical feel for the Battle of the
          > > > > Atlantic. Thus, playability was
          > > > > > reduced for little gain in historical recreation. WiF
          already
          > > > has
          > > > > too many counters.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > As always...Thoughts and opinions on what I have said is
          > > > > appreciated.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Michael Burke
          > > > > > MichaelMVB @ yahoo.com
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com , "LGB" <lgb42@>
          wrote:
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > As has been posted the change from 5 to 2 CP's for asw
          was
          > > > > inserted
          > > > > > > into the rules in a later version of raw7. Here are some
          > > > reasons
          > > > > why
          > > > > > > this change should be reconsidered:
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 1) First and foremost it's terrible on the strategic
          level.
          > > > > With the
          > > > > > > city mods the game already tilts heavily towards a 1941
          > > Barb.
          > > > > > > Increasing allied CP asw 150+% decreases incentive for
          the
          > > > > euroaxis to
          > > > > > > build subs and pursue the BOA. It's just one more tilt
          > > towards
          > > > an
          > > > > > > "all out" Barb in a game already leaning far too heavily
          in
          > > that
          > > > > > > direction at the expense of other strategy choices. This
          > > only
          > > > > serves
          > > > > > > to decrease playability.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 2) In a game where so many talk about the many and
          varied
          > > > choices
          > > > > > > intrinsic asw is mindless. Far better to reward a player
          who
          > > > > builds
          > > > > > > to protect his convoy lines that simply hand out enough
          free
          > > > asw
          > > > > to
          > > > > > > compensate for poor play in this area. Far better to
          give
          > > the
          > > > > allies
          > > > > > > a bit more production and give them the choice to build
          it
          > > on
          > > > asw
          > > > > or
          > > > > > > not. This is EXACTLY what Convoys in Flames did by
          adding
          > > > > food in
          > > > > > > flames to partially compensate for having to build these
          > > units.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 3) From an activity limits and oil perspective it's a
          huge
          > > > > gift. The
          > > > > > > allies suddenly need far fewer ships at sea, less moves
          to
          > > get
          > > > > them
          > > > > > > there, and less oil to reorg them. Moreover, the free
          asw
          > > > > escorts on
          > > > > > > the CP's do not RTB and thus beyond being the most cost
          > > > effective
          > > > > asw
          > > > > > > escort (1943+) they are always on station and do not
          cost
          > > oil!
          > > > > All
          > > > > > > you really need are a few old BB's just in case the
          other
          > > side
          > > > can
          > > > > > > call surface and even that is less effective now since
          the
          > > > change
          > > > > > > reducing all subs surface by 1!
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 4) Convoys in Flames or now the new title of What's the
          > > Point
          > > > in
          > > > > > > Flames. ASW escorts operate pretty much like CP's as
          they do
          > > > not
          > > > > RTB,
          > > > > > > have only asw and no surface points, etc. While you get
          food
          > > in
          > > > > > > flames you have to build the escorts. Compare the cost
          of
          > > > > building 14
          > > > > > > points of asw escorts for the North Atlantic vs building
          > > > nothing
          > > > > and
          > > > > > > getting 14 asw points for free in J/F 1943 (15 CP's) and
          21
          > > > > points the
          > > > > > > next year.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 5) How long untill the new round of calls for further
          > > reducing
          > > > > sub
          > > > > > > surface factors? All those free allied asw factors mean
          the
          > > > axis
          > > > > will
          > > > > > > be calling many more surface combats. There are already
          > > people
          > > > > > > calling for CP's to be given surface factors. It'll be a
          > > much
          > > > > better
          > > > > > > game when the allies don't have to bother building,
          moving,
          > > or
          > > > > > > reorging escorts and can concentrate on the real war as
          the
          > > > CP's
          > > > > will
          > > > > > > gain enough surface and asw to mostly self escort. We
          can
          > > all
          > > > > just
          > > > > > > ignore the little bit by Churchill below.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 6) "The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor
          all
          > > > > through
          > > > > > > the war. Never for one moment could we forget that
          everything
          > > > > > > elsewhere, on land, at sea, or in the air, depended
          > > ultimately
          > > > on
          > > > > its
          > > > > > > outcome, and amid all other cares we viewed it's
          changing
          > > > > fortunes day
          > > > > > > by day with hope or apprehension." Winston S. Churchill
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > 7) Instead of finally rationalizing the sub war with
          WiFFE,
          > > > > CLiF, and
          > > > > > > Convoys in Flames this rule simply ends the entire
          > > discussion
          > > > in
          > > > > favor
          > > > > > > of a mindless and artifical end of that conflict with
          little
          > > > > appartent
          > > > > > > thought to the consequences.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I strongly suggest this rule be repealed today or at the
          > > very
          > > > > least be
          > > > > > > made optional, today, so a little thought can be put
          into
          > > the
          > > > long
          > > > > > > term consequences for WiF. I honestly do not desire to
          play
          > > > this
          > > > > game
          > > > > > > with this rule change- especially as the CW as it would
          just
          > > > feel
          > > > > like
          > > > > > > cheating. Comments are strongly encouraged.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Lane
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
          > > > > Game design college Game design schools Game design
          > > > schools Game design degree Game design education Game design
          > > > training
          > > > >
          > > > > ---------------------------------
          > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.
          > > > >
          > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > > > wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > > >
          > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > > > Service.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ---------------------------------
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ---------------------------------
          > > > > Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger !
          Découvez
          > > > les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et
          > > > l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.
          > > > >
          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • IA-211-BZ
          The problem is not the chit itself, it is that USA will get in the war early, so you need to build up garrison, navy and air power sooner because of these 3
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
            The problem is not the chit itself, it is that USA will get in the war early, so you need to build up garrison, navy and air power sooner because of these 3 chits.

            usually, it is a great risk to stay very active in china after having generated 3 chits, especially if your purpose is to conquer china, which will generate 3 chits at least (it could surrender too). Aligning finland is a 1 chit affair, conquering china is at least a 3 chit affair, and perhaps far more. It is not the same scale.

            We are speaking here about 6 chit in total, so a full year worth of automatic US entry pick up, and japan is usually far more impacted by US entry than germany.

            hubert

            zpmu061 <harold.m.martin-vignerte@...> a écrit :
            i doubt that. will ge not align finland because rumania, bulga and
            hungary all led to a chit?

            harold

            p.s. i believe toxic gas is lif past.

            --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@...> wrote:
            >
            > I can assure that if the first 3 city conquered gives US a chit, JP
            will stop his attack...






            SPONSORED LINKS
            Game design college Game design schools Game design schools Game design degree Game design education Game design training

            ---------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


            Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------





            ---------------------------------
            Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • zpmu061
            of course the axis can adjust to high or low us entry. but if adjusting means stopping attacking a mp, i think its the wrong way to go. harold ... war early,
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
              of course the axis can "adjust" to high or low us entry. but if
              adjusting means stopping attacking a mp, i think its the wrong way
              to go. harold

              --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@...> wrote:
              >
              > The problem is not the chit itself, it is that USA will get in the
              war early, so you need to build up garrison, navy and air power
              sooner because of these 3 chits.
              >
              > usually, it is a great risk to stay very active in china after
              having generated 3 chits, especially if your purpose is to conquer
              china, which will generate 3 chits at least (it could surrender
              too). Aligning finland is a 1 chit affair, conquering china is at
              least a 3 chit affair, and perhaps far more. It is not the same
              scale.
              >
              > We are speaking here about 6 chit in total, so a full year worth
              of automatic US entry pick up, and japan is usually far more
              impacted by US entry than germany.
              >
              > hubert
              >
              > zpmu061 <harold.m.martin-vignerte@...> a écrit :
              > i doubt that. will ge not align finland because rumania, bulga
              and
              > hungary all led to a chit?
              >
              > harold
              >
              > p.s. i believe toxic gas is lif past.
              >
              > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I can assure that if the first 3 city conquered gives US a chit,
              JP
              > will stop his attack...
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              > Game design college Game design schools Game design
              schools Game design degree Game design education Game design
              training
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              >
              > Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez
              les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et
              l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • IA-211-BZ
              Does having the US in the war 3 turn earlier, and be oil embargoes 2-3 turn earlier too worth the cost of crushing china? (a minimum for 6 additional chit)
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
                Does having the US in the war 3 turn earlier, and be oil embargoes 2-3 turn earlier too worth the cost of crushing china? (a minimum for 6 additional chit)

                When playing with partisan and a 20 value for china and pacific ZoC, my personal opinion is no, but it is debatable. It strongly depends on russia activities, prewar US build (only ships and air or a lot of land stuff?) and so on.

                In all cases, there is little gain for japan in completely finishing china, you still need a huge garnison, and you get only 1 productive ressources in chungking (red factory). It is IMHO far better to blast them to avoid any threat in 41-42 and gain productive ressources only, yet consider killing the communist especially when playing nationalist chinese weakness.

                let him live to die another day ;op

                Hubert

                zpmu061 <harold.m.martin-vignerte@...> a écrit :
                of course the axis can "adjust" to high or low us entry. but if
                adjusting means stopping attacking a mp, i think its the wrong way
                to go. harold

                --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@...> wrote:
                >
                > The problem is not the chit itself, it is that USA will get in the
                war early, so you need to build up garrison, navy and air power
                sooner because of these 3 chits.
                >
                > usually, it is a great risk to stay very active in china after
                having generated 3 chits, especially if your purpose is to conquer
                china, which will generate 3 chits at least (it could surrender
                too). Aligning finland is a 1 chit affair, conquering china is at
                least a 3 chit affair, and perhaps far more. It is not the same
                scale.
                >
                > We are speaking here about 6 chit in total, so a full year worth
                of automatic US entry pick up, and japan is usually far more
                impacted by US entry than germany.
                >
                > hubert
                >
                > zpmu061 <harold.m.martin-vignerte@...> a écrit :
                > i doubt that. will ge not align finland because rumania, bulga
                and
                > hungary all led to a chit?
                >
                > harold
                >
                > p.s. i believe toxic gas is lif past.
                >
                > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, IA-211-BZ <IA211@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I can assure that if the first 3 city conquered gives US a chit,
                JP
                > will stop his attack...
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > SPONSORED LINKS
                > Game design college Game design schools Game design
                schools Game design degree Game design education Game design
                training
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                >
                > Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez
                les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et
                l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >






                SPONSORED LINKS
                Game design college Game design schools Game design schools Game design degree Game design education Game design training

                ---------------------------------
                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                ---------------------------------





                ---------------------------------
                Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Herbert Gratz
                Removing CH is a big boon IMO. The garrison can be kept with a lot of bad units/aeroplanes, leaving all the good stuff to go elsewhere. No inconvinient land or
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 2, 2006
                  Removing CH is a big boon IMO. The garrison can be kept with a lot of bad units/aeroplanes, leaving all the good stuff to go elsewhere. No inconvinient land or combined to take due to CH interference when you wanted to do a naval etc.
                  But I agree that waiting until US is in or all but in makes sense.

                  >>> IA211@... 01.03.2006 13:56 >>>
                  Does having the US in the war 3 turn earlier, and be oil embargoes 2-3 turn earlier too worth the cost of crushing china? (a minimum for 6 additional chit)

                  When playing with partisan and a 20 value for china and pacific ZoC, my personal opinion is no, but it is debatable. It strongly depends on russia activities, prewar US build (only ships and air or a lot of land stuff?) and so on.

                  In all cases, there is little gain for japan in completely finishing china, you still need a huge garnison, and you get only 1 productive ressources in chungking (red factory). It is IMHO far better to blast them to avoid any threat in 41-42 and gain productive ressources only, yet consider killing the communist especially when playing nationalist chinese weakness.

                  let him live to die another day ;op

                  Hubert

                  zpmu061 < harold.m.martin-vignerte@... > a écrit :
                  of course the axis can "adjust" to high or low us entry. but if
                  adjusting means stopping attacking a mp, i think its the wrong way
                  to go. harold

                  --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com , IA-211-BZ < IA211@.. .> wrote:
                  >
                  > The problem is not the chit itself, it is that USA will get in the
                  war early, so you need to build up garrison, navy and air power
                  sooner because of these 3 chits.
                  >
                  > usually, it is a great risk to stay very active in china after
                  having generated 3 chits, especially if your purpose is to conquer
                  china, which will generate 3 chits at least (it could surrender
                  too). Aligning finland is a 1 chit affair, conquering china is at
                  least a 3 chit affair, and perhaps far more. It is not the same
                  scale.
                  >
                  > We are speaking here about 6 chit in total, so a full year worth
                  of automatic US entry pick up, and japan is usually far more
                  impacted by US entry than germany.
                  >
                  > hubert
                  >
                  > zpmu061 < harold.m.martin-vignerte@.. .> a écrit :
                  > i doubt that. will ge not align finland because rumania, bulga
                  and
                  > hungary all led to a chit?
                  >
                  > harold
                  >
                  > p.s. i believe toxic gas is lif past.
                  >
                  > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com , IA-211-BZ <IA211@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I can assure that if the first 3 city conquered gives US a chit,
                  JP
                  > will stop his attack...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > SPONSORED LINKS
                  > Game design college Game design schools Game design
                  schools Game design degree Game design education Game design
                  training
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  >
                  > Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  Service.
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez
                  les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et
                  l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >






                  SPONSORED LINKS
                  Game design college Game design schools Game design schools Game design degree Game design education Game design training

                  ---------------------------------
                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                  Visit your group "wifdiscussion" on the web.

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  ---------------------------------





                  ---------------------------------
                  Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.Téléchargez la version beta.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  Yahoo! Groups Links











                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.