Carrier based planes do they count the SZ they are in as movement # 1?

@marshmallowofwar thanks to both you and @AndrewAAGamer for clarifying. Thought I had a sneaky way to slow him down, but will have to give it some more thought!

@Emperor:

I’m still a little confused.  If the carrier is attacked, and the carrier is damaged, are the planes prevented from landing back on the carrier and thus must find a safe landing zone with in 1 space of the sea zone or be destroyed?

yes

That’s right,

They all blow chunks, because they use the 2 letter system.  The sheer lunacy of the system restricts their strategic potential.

I’ve beaten BadSpell, Gamerman, Working on Blitz now…  .

Certainly haven’t lost to any of the above.  And I kicked your a s s too.

It’s the way 2 letter players think - two dementional, and lazy. Without forethought, poise, or consistency.  It’s just not good enough.  True Axis and Allies players use the 3 letter - all encompassing system - so that any and ALL can understand, and see thier might in the open.

My challenge goes out to ALL who dare to oppose my view, especially those you have name and as I said, I’d wager my game on it.  My 3 vs your 2.  They are too cowardly to accept. (Save Blitz who is doomed!)

Axis and Allies is for everyone, a community, our games are public for every person to view and understand.  Not restricted for the pomp few who live by an archaic and unprogressed system.

Might as well use numbers instead of the 2L system if you don’t agree,  1, 2, 3X 10 to territory 22 vs 2x4, 1, 3, 4x7  Wow awesome hey?

NEVER use that retarded 2 letter system.

It’s for bonehead’s who don’t know how to play Axis and Allies.  (Yes that’s an open challenge to ANYONE, who’ll wager a game on using 2 letter acronymns over 3)

SUB - Submarine
TRN - Transport
DST - Destroyer
CRU - Cruiser
ACC - Aircraft Carrier
BAT - Battleship
FGT - Fighter (or FIG or FTR)
TAC - Tactical Bomber
BMB - Bomber

etc

Don’t get caught looking like a FOOL, for listening to the 2 letter baboons around here.

@eddiem4145:

I want information. Information as to why or where the rule came from and information I do not already know as to what would make it impossible, unlikely, or overly dangerous to fly over the sahara. If there is no info to give, then oh well. My supposedly frustration, (remember, its written, you can’t see my emotions or facial expressions) is from people giving house rules as suppose to the info i was requesting, that is all

I believe it originates between the Classic Map and the Revised Map.  In the classics map, only Neutral Territories were represented, and due to the small number of territories and adjacencies, there were balance issues (I’ve seen arguments either way, but in general the smaller number of territories was a problem).  In the Revised map, with the addition of more territories, there was probably also a desire to represent more historically accurate unit movements (and reduce axis advantage in snagging parts of africa and vice versa later in the game).  The Himalayas isolated India from China, and the Sahara created a buffer between the axis mediterranean territories and british territories directly south.

In Classic, Germany had multiple routes to Africa (go south!). In Revised, there is only one (short of transports) - egypt.  The benefit to this was to force egypt to become a back and forth battle between britain and germany as they vie for a strategic advantage.

In order to create a simple rule that aligned with previous mechanics (impassible neutrals), I would imagine that they simply desired these territories to follow the same rules and not allow flyovers either.  After all, while it was possible to fly over the sahara and himalayas, it was very dangerous and hardly the preferred route.

As the game map has grown (classics - revised - AA50 - AA40), it has clearly remained a desire by the designer to maintain the strategic route through egypt.  And because at the outset of the game allowing flyovers would favor the Axis (far more planes available in close proximity), I would imagine it’s a balance issue as well (at least, early game).  Removing the restriction dilutes the value of Egypt.

Satisfied?

Oops, I guess you would just use the Italians….ok maybe fancy Chinese units :) I’ll try not to miss the obvious next time I post. Seriously, for those who get Italian and Russia piece colors mixed up, blue would be obvious in a homemade aa50.

Lets say you kept Italians in this set , and split the French pieces so you could have two games going…aae40 and aa50Homemade. Its a stretch.

Back to the point of this forum, I can see the option for France to build a carrier if they are not taken round 1…an Idea I have posted for speeding up a Russian invasion potentially. Granted it would probably be sank, but it could be built, now how about that French Battleship? :)

Miamibeach, true if you can counter the SZ112 fleet of Germany you don’t go after the Italians I guess.

However if you can’t or Germany does not go Sea Lion this is very good attack and I am not quite sure this attack was foreseen during playtest.

p.s. you talk about 9 inf defending UK, but what about the Canadian troops coming in?

@Axisgirl:

And if you let Italy eat up Africa…Then Germany looks pretty bleak

Africa will be hard, but if you can get through Egypt and Med you will be able to slowly move on the British, but they have an IC in South Africa. Russia will be bigger so Germany could get a lot more countless territories and France will be a few, so they can build up, but if the US ever gets there they are rich