New Dice

Thank you! That makes sense. That’ll make a mess for uk to deal with lol.

@Zarito:

I was just wondering if it is allowed to send more than two planes to a battle in a seazone when only one carrier could be there at the end of turn. The motivation would be that some of the aircraft would die in the battle and each individual aircraft can land on the carrier. Did not find an answer in the rulebook but probably didn’t look thoroughly enough.

Look here:

@rulebook:

Air Units
…
You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It
could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.

In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate
a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber. Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have
been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example,
aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after
combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). However, during noncombat movement
and new unit mobilization, you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as possible after all combats are resolved.
…

HTH :-)

Are you sure , that you do not have a tweeny-weeny doubt nibbling in the back of your mind … maybe he has it?!

I was reluctant at first, because  thought it’ll affect my move… but on reflection… there is another smaller, better and niftier way to deal with that.  Hence wrote what i did.

Did take into account “Cow”'s fantastic  - J1 offense.  In fact, to be honest it was my biggest challenge to overcome. OK.

Happy thinking  :evil:

The Axis should not win unless you really out maneuver the allies. By 1942, the axis were really in a bad spot since they had not made enough gains before the US onslaught came. If you want a historically accurate game, meaning not having to play it the way the war really went, but being to make your own decisions with the conditions that existed in 1942, and want a balanced game, 1942 is not the year to start.

I would love to see a 1939 game, but I wonder if that would be too long. The 1940 2nd edition in my opinion is where you should stay. I know there is a 1941 game but have not played it.

It occurs immediately upon Japan’s declaration of war.

Yea that was a poor example that I made and poor argument in what I was trying to say.  I’m going to regroup and state my case again……  thanks for all the feed back…

@lnmajor:

But then you would never send unescorted transports to amphibous assault a TT containing a airbase with fighters present. Is that correct?

yup, gotta protect those transports.

Russia, man.  Since I started playing Classic, Russia goes to the newb.  Center of the action, forgiving because it’s huge, easy purchases, don’t have to learn naval units yet, straightforward strategy, roll fistfuls of dice.

“Look, here, buy as many infantry as you can afford.  Hold off the Germans.  Keep your planes alive.  Stall the japs in Siberia.”

Axis?  No way.