LOL , snuck in as an Morroccan  dancing girl . Not yet familiar with all the abv.

Carrier planes are always defending in the air, no matter what type of units are attacking.

Figure out how to hit the USA on G3-G7 along with Jap help and It help  Gib is key

It has to all be done in the same countries turn, because that’s when you have to land your on your carrier.

I think the only time anything can retreat separately is with an amphibious invasion.

If you only have attacking subs and planes, the subs could submerge (assuming no enemy destroyer) but the planes would have to wait one round before retreating.

@goalievogel:

Can planes scramble on Japan against lets say… American subs as long as they have subs or destroyers themselves?

I believe that per the wording of the rules, aircraft can scramble in response to ANY combat move that ends in the adjacent seazone.  So they can scramble against subs.  But they cannot hit them.  So there’s no reason to scramble.

Also, if japan has subs, they wouldn’t help Japanese aircraft hit american subs.  Only a friendly (in this example a Japanese, German, or Italian) destroyer would allow the defending scrambled planes hit attacking subs (as friendly destroyers assist in combat - this is obviously not the case on attack).

@Variable:

Is this because the German transports are considered part of the attack (amphibious assault)?

Yes.  Transports that unload for an amphibious assault do so in the Combat movement phase (ending their movement for that turn), and so they are considered part of the combat force.

@TheDefinitiveS:

Note West India is part of the Pacific and the Canadian Territories are part of the Europe side.

This is true in the Alpha rules only.

@Gargantua:

I was in a group game, where we were winning, and my “allied” UK partner, got wiped from the game, after the germans rolled a last ditch fluke shot on Paratroopers, and took the London Capital.

It was all downhill from there, as no one was in range of taking it back immediately (Blocked)  and he was able to build off of U.K.

But would you say that this actually enhanced the gaming experience?

This is exactly the reason I don’t like the R&D rules, it is a bit too much based on luck and once earned changes the entire (delicate) balance of the game.

I hear this from the previous posts, though I would be very interested in how and why R&D deserves a place in the game based on long-term strategies…

(I can remember from the original setup it made strategic sence to invest in developments, but the game back then was less complicated and less delicately balanced)

My bad  :roll:, I mistook Iceland to be an US territory. Nevermind my remarks, but thanks anyway Krieg!

@TheDefinitiveS:

Can you use them the turn they were captured, on your NCM with units that had not moved in combat?

No.

I think Anzac should take a clear mission for itself. My last game I assigned to Anzac the occupation and defence of the DEI money islands. These are worth 16 IPC to the allies and even 20 IPC to Japan. I just occupy these islands with just enough infantry to make it difficult for Japan to take them without making a sizeable investment.

Even if Japan makes this investment you have succeeded: Japan is not investing that IPC in China/India!

If JP leaves the islands alone, Anzac can build a fleet to support the US!

I am always tempted to use this strategy with the allies. There is however always one thing which holds me from doing so: the Mongolian forces - if Japan can activate these units, I think this will tip the balance on the pacific board in favor of the Axis.

Nevertheless, It would be a disaster for Germany to defend another border, which is so close to france and the US at the same time…

@Zallomallo:

Yes, an act of war by Japan on UK or ANZAC(and maybe France?) puts them at war with the US.

It does not put them at war.  It allows them to declare war.  There is a rather large distinction, as Japan can end the turn in seazones with US ships (or attack seazones with both US and UK/Anzac ships, ignoring the US ships) that are still friendly to them until the US declares war on the combat move of its next turn.

Japan declaring war on France has no impact whatsoever.  Japan can declare war on france and as long as they don’t attack FIC, they’ll continue to collect their National Objective.  Even if they do attack FIC, japan only loses their objective.  It does not permit the US to declare war.

@Dark_Destroyer:

@knp7765:

@Dark_Destroyer:

The war Japanese started began with Korea and ended with America, it just flowed into WW2.

Incorrect.  As was previously stated, Korea already belonged to Japan.  The war started when Japanese forces invaded Manchuria from Korea in Sept. 1931.

Actually you are incorrect.  Japan had a 35-year imperialist expansion, which lasted August 22, 1910 to August 15, 1945.  That expansion included Korea, China, and finally US islands.  Which ended up (you guessed wrong) happening to include WW2.

nit-picking the nit-picker: japanese expansion started in 1905 with attacking the russian forces in Port Arthur ^^

Well, right now it seems like London isn’t hard to take.

@Ruanek:

@Xandax:

@MarkHC:

Bottom line, I’ve played multiple games as the Soviet Union where I didn’t let anyone attack my units except an infantry I left as a road block.  Even when Japan invades Russia turn one/two and tries to keep pushing, it still didn’t make much difference because they can only take a territory a turn.  So when Germany finally reaches Moscow, almost every single unit I’ve built as Russia is there defending my capital.  Sure, if time weren’t a factor, it’s a bad strategy, but I know that the Allies are going to be landing in force by turn 5 or so, so the Axis is not able to deal with the Allied pressure and overcome a huge Moscow stack.

If the allies are landing in force in turn 5 Europe is lost regardless of a large stack of inf in Moscow.
Nothing is gained in the game by removing USSRs chance to defend and making a German attack on Russia go faster. On the contrary.
The huge stack isn’t an automatic win.

Well, not having the huge stack gives the Axis a bit more of a chance to blitz and take the necessary 8 victory cities quickly.

Well - of course. And removing the Russian troops entirely would equally.
You cannot remove the turtle. You shouldn’t IMO make it easier to take Russia.
We should however figure out why turteling is so strong and address that cause instead of just the symptom.

If you make it any easier to take Russia, you’ve effectively turned Germany into a one trick pony and removed most strategy from the European board.

Japan/Russia has no effect on UK/Anzac relations to Japan.
UK/Anzac can declare war on Japan “when they want” (so to speak)

@Commando:

The copy of the Alpha +2 rules I have don’t say the 30 IPC’s that the US originally got for being at war, were now divided between the NO’s in the Alpha +2 rules. So just wanted to make sure.

In the original OOB rules, the US gets 30 IPCs each turn as long as it holds the continental US.  It’s a NO.

In the Alpha +.2 rules, it’s similar but it’s more split up between the different US territories.

Let Japan die and go for the Europe Win.