NO question

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

Thanks that’s sorta what I thought

Welcome, General A-Ron!

Wheatbeer is correct.  Since Kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Conduct Combat phase, any attacking air units are already in the air.

On the subject of convoy disruption, here’s a quote from the 2nd edition Rulebook:

There are three conditions that must exist for this kind of attack to occur:
1. The sea zone must have a “Convoy” image,
2. The sea zone must be adjacent to one or more of your controlled territories, and
3. At least 1 warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone. (Any ships in the sea zone that belong to you or a friendly power will have no effect on convoy disruption.)

Convoy attacks on “Convoy” sea zones are conducted in the following manner.

Each enemy warship (except for aircraft carriers) and carrier-based air unit in the sea zone might cause the loss of 1 or more IPCs from your income for the turn. The owners of enemy battleships, cruisers, and/or destroyers rolls one die for each such unit, and the owners of enemy submarines and/or air units roll two dice for each such unit. Any rolls of “4” or higher are ignored. The results of these rolls that are “3” or less are totaled, and the resulting number is the total convoy damage suffered in the disruption. However, this number might be limited. Each disrupted convoy can’t lose more IPCs than the total IPC value of your controlled territories adjacent to the sea zone. Also, no single territory can lose more IPCs than its own IPC value from multiple disrupted adjacent convoys (for example, Japan cannot lose more than 8 IPCs from disrupted convoys in sea zones 6 and 19). After these limits are applied, the final total is subtracted from your income for the turn.

The only time it didn’t work for me was when my dice went sour on G5 & G6 going into Russia, But the following week it worked and everybody was rolling better, I have yet to try it with the latest 3.9 rules. So much depends on good rolls at key battles and being able to work as an Axis team.

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

@Krieghund:

Yes.

thanks!

You could also hide the fighter in Kwangtung C1,  sure it’s under threat, but it’s destruction would require a J2 DoW.

What a bunch of JUNK.  One of my new plans was to NOT attack china in several places, and focus on a troop build up for india,  but now those pesky Chinese just STACK in Burma :S  Yunann MUST be obliterated J1.

You are correct–friendly ships belonging to other powers that are in the same SZ as an amphib assault do not fire during the attack.