Friendly Naval bases - but nuetral, question

An interesting variation on the point;  but nothing got paired multiple times at once.  Good call.

I refer to both TAC+FIG and ART+MAN as a “combat pair” (or if confusing, “air pair”) when I roll–but that pairing concept 1:1 is the key I think.

Yes I was very hesitant to liberate it, but in this case Germany and Russia were at a standstill, both trading back the Polish territories and the Soviets making the occasional excursion into Romania/Balkans. In this particular game Germany was able to take France right back, but at the expense of a giving up troops against the Soviets. It lost more in units than the 17 IPCs it gained from taking it. The Soviets captured Berlin two turns later with Paris still under German control. As the US had Japan blockaded, convoyed and strategic bombed, the game was over.

a base is soo much more than a harbour, it is all the industry, logistics and support you need to operate at maximum efficency. For pacific it means heavy convoy lines. for europe it probably also mean many rail lines and also alot of gaoline.

I like the prize at 15. it makes it expesive but worth it to build it in egypt and gibraltar.

In my games I have seen german airbase in yugo and an italian one in north italy (or is it south that starts without one)

it is also important for the dynamic, if all the german bombers are in italian controlled ukraine or rostov, an italian airbase there can make the allies less safe on the seas. that extra airbase might mean counterattack with all planes in the north sea or with bombers and finns in norway. Well worth the 15 IPC, but the italians have to save if they have to small income.

To be able to land a plane in a territory, the territory has to be under controll by you or your allies at the begining of your turn.

@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).

I think there is a general dogfight and then surviving bombers and tac split up to attack their intended targets. Thus, it would be 2 ftrs, 4 tac, 2 bmrs vs 3 ftrs for 1 round.

I agree with the thinking here that we should stick to OOB rules for at least a little longer. I don’t mind a few official changes here and there. I always use the errata and FAQ’s that are released after a game comes out due to misprints in the manual or an obvious balance problem (AAP). However, these sweeping changes are too much too fast. Its almost like a few influencial people screamed too early and no one else was able to say, “lets slow down and take a more methodical approach to the changes.”
It seems like we are being caught up in a rushing river and can’t get out. Alpha is evidence that the squeaky wheel gets greased.

I will stick to OOB rules until something official comes out and then evaluate it. If there are a few reasonable changes I will use them, but if it is anything like these Alpha changes, I most likely won’t. I never used LHTR for the same reason.

on G1, However no one starts with NO income