Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Ok, it must be because of the rules affecting the country itself, I see...

I had the impression it could be any because I had seen examples of other countries aligned this way, Irak or Persia, and Turkey... I believe always on the side of Axis.

Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angeldust2

The range of the three US carriers is 4. It is equal the air component factor in the lower left.
Attention: Japanese carriers only have range equal to air component x 2 !

Yes, tactical factors are 2 (4 divided by 2) and strategic factors are 1 (4 divided by 4).

AtA and AtS factors are equal to air component, so both are 4.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Be aware that the carriers automatically increase strength several times during a game if you do not play with CVP.

In 1942 and 1943, add 1 to the air component of every CV. In 1944 and later, add 2 to the air component of
every CV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Be aware that the carriers automatically increase strength several times during a game if you do not play with CVP.

In 1942 and 1943, add 1 to the air component of every CV. In 1944 and later, add 2 to the air component of
every CV.

Thanks! Just curious, what folks experiences are playing without pilots and carrier planes (if any such folks exist that is).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ssiviour

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Be aware that the carriers automatically increase strength several times during a game if you do not play with CVP.

In 1942 and 1943, add 1 to the air component of every CV. In 1944 and later, add 2 to the air component of
every CV.

Thanks! Just curious, what folks experiences are playing without pilots and carrier planes (if any such folks exist that is).

I have played a couple of games without CVP.

Particularly as the Axis I hated it. While yes, individually, it is great for Japan, I feel it makes CVs just way too powerful and unbalanced.

Needless to say, as the Allies I love it ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: ssiviour

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Be aware that the carriers automatically increase strength several times during a game if you do not play with CVP.

In 1942 and 1943, add 1 to the air component of every CV. In 1944 and later, add 2 to the air component of
every CV.

Thanks! Just curious, what folks experiences are playing without pilots and carrier planes (if any such folks exist that is).

I have played a couple of games without CVP.

Particularly as the Axis I hated it. While yes, individually, it is great for Japan, I feel it makes CVs just way too powerful and unbalanced.

Needless to say, as the Allies I love it ....

I hate never to be able to fill all the RN CVs/CVPs with planes because they can't draw the correct size when they build. I'm also looking to decrease the power of land based air and increase the power of carrier air groups in the Pacific. Finally I'm looking for a way to decrease the effectiveness of CW strategic bombing in the early game. In my opinion, what a CW player can accomplish in early game playing with pilots in that regards would far exceed the wildest dreams of "Bomber" Harris. I'm hoping playing without pilots mutes that significantly and allows Germany not to have to build out their fighter force and deploy it France and Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
There is a good solution to put planes unto the CW carriers. Don't scrap the zero cost CVP from the CW force pools.

And where strategic bombardment by the CW alone in the early game is concerned: if they are building bombers, they are not building enough convoy points, land units, FTR and HQ's to make sure places like Egypt, Malta and in the long run India and Australia stay CW controlled.
France is in need of a strong CW presence too. The defense of the USSR starts with a nice BEF in France (and Belgium, if possible). In addition to this, it's very good play to aid the French with a lot of CW controlled resources. The longer it takes for Germany to get to Paris, the better it is for the Allies. One or two turns delay, increases the chances of a Allied victory a lot...

quote:

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Any advice on when to collapse Vichy. In my solo game, Axis never got any traction in N. Africa, so almost all those territories have been lost. Basically, just Vichy itself is left. At what point should it be done with, after all, it still has a small navy and land/air forces to protect from south Med invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Another question. This one concerning US entry action. The d10 for US reaction to a Japanese capture of a Chinese city is listed as 2 to 4. How specifically is that calculated?

quote:

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Any advice on when to collapse Vichy. In my solo game, Axis never got any traction in N. Africa, so almost all those territories have been lost. Basically, just Vichy itself is left. At what point should it be done with, after all, it still has a small navy and land/air forces to protect from south Med invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Thanks. I was kind of thinking that way. Still a few more to save, and perhaps, some more ships to get destroyed before I take over then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Thanks. I was kind of thinking that way. Still a few more to save, and perhaps, some more ships to get destroyed before I take over then.

That's one way to look at it. But: a hostile and active Vichy can send all saved build points to Germany in a trade agreement. And: what's worth more: a nice army sitting on the south coast of France or those build points? Don't forget: you need to garrison the southern coast of France against Allied invasion and it takes time to build units using those build points.