@robson

Yeah something like that, but when I heard this bizarre tactic it seemed a bit more directed at the Soviet Union doing a reverse can opener with the UK on Germany, which is what had me confused since that’s not how that works as far as my knowledge goes.

@thedesertfox @Tin-Can-of-the-Sea
You’re both right about ANZAC units. They have the best colour.

@tin-can-of-the-sea

Definitely. I’ve been playing many of the different versions of A&A for a while now and having read through rule book after rule book especially with G40 I still miss rules that I overlooked and what not so thank goodness the forums exist for people to inform on these kinds of overlooked and missed aspects of the game.

@flyingbadger

Absolutely badger.

While we may see the fight in the Mediterranean from different perspectives, what we inevitably all agree on is that it’s one of the more significant fronts that can easily sway the game for one side or the other all down to the results of a simple raid on Italy.

For me I stick by my philosophy that every Axis piece on the board should be doing something, or playing some sort of role. Which is why I’m a firm believer that scrambling the fighters into the Taranto Raid as the Axis should be done every single time because fact of the matter is, a lot of people tend to say that it’s better to save those fighters for something new but in the end nobody really knows what they’re saving them for, and that’s what causes Axis players to lose. I mean granted Squire had previously said earlier to save those fighters against the French ships or the remaining British ships in the Med but for me the Taranto Raid is the only time I’ll really be able to take of British Planes if I scramble these fighters and when they’re throwing this many planes at me then that’s my objective. Obviously you won’t be able to have absolutely every unit doing something and playing some sort of genuine authentic role but you can get very close to having every single unit active on the board, which is what wins you games.

@shadowhawk

Easier said than done though.

Right off the bat Germany will be consistently making more money than both Britain and the Soviet Union having taken out the rest of Europe and thats before they start attacking the Soviet Union.

Keeping the income advantage really only rests on America since the only change in their income will be losing the Philippines islands, as for everybody else, they can expect their IPC count to plummet with the combined strength of the Germans and Italians.

Also, like I said, taking Rome and Berlin is on the table to accomplish, taking Tokyo however not so much since A) it’s on an island B) It’s gonna have lot’s of dudes on it and C) the Pacific is too big to build any assortment of floating bridge and would be too expensive, hence why we would end the game if Japan is limited to their home island plus maybe Korea since they’re pretty much dead in the water so there is no point in playing any further.

@marshmallowofwar

Okay, thanks for correcting me on this

@barnee oki cool thank you :)

@marshmallowofwar

Much appreciated. So then naval bombardment does count towards a combat move

ANZAC (and UK) can. USA cannot.

The factory is destroyed as the territory becomes Chinese no matter what Allied Power captured it.

AA Pacific 1940 2nd Edition Rulebook - Page 10

If a Japanese industrial complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.

@panther

Well for starters I’ve totally negated this rule so thanks for confirming with me that this was true

While I’m not the biggest fan of a rule like this, I can understand how it stops player like Germany and the Soviet Union from abusing the fact that they could just move their tanks forward into combat, than move them out of combat to keep them safe.

@nishav said in Help! American declaration of war privilege:

@squirecam Considering an American transport train can hit any of Rio de Oro, Gibraltar, Normandy, the Low Countries, Denmark, and Norway in one turn, that’s 7 fighters/bombers peeled off to sit those territories.

That strategy would have required Japan to commit multiple planes to sitting on the Atlantic wall, not pressing Russia and not available to defend against a British surprise attack in Asia.

Yes it has risks and benefits. However, it’s kinda moot as the rule doesnt work that way.

@andrewaagamer said in Quick question about airplanes:

@zbox said in Quick question about airplanes:

@panther

So a follow up question on this topic that we have debated in our games.

If you have a carrier carrying two fighters along with two fighters on land, in range of your sea zone battle, can the two fighters from your carrier land safely elsewhere(non-combat movement) while the two fighters from land end up on the carrier? A Swaperoo if you will. Is that legal?

Yes

Swapping fighters is a key battle tactic for success. So is utilizing additional carriers, as you can move a carrier 2-3 spaces away to pick up those fighters (but in truth intend not to do so because the fighters will be the first losses).

This gets more airforce in a battle than you otherwise would be allowed. As an example, you could do the Taranto raid, not bring in the carrier, take the london fighter as a loss, and then move the carrier through the canal.

@fasthard said in Ships forced to fight and frozen in place?:

Are you also allowed to move units further in NCM after leaving that occupied sz (when e.g. blockers are destroyed) or even back?

No. Land and sea units that move in combat movement and/or participate in combat may not move in noncombat movement.

@nishav That is correct. Many people use the Mech from London to accomplish the same thing.

@krieghund Thank you very much Krieghund. This makes sense…

Uh oh. You’re in trouble, then. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

@freh Ok, I see it now. Pretty sneaky :)

Thankyou