Fghter/Carrier Question

@tincanofthesea said in Question about Combat:

@alexander-ritter yes, this way you can’t choose to not attack based off of other attacks

Thank you!

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

@Charles:

4.  If your planes have any movement points left, they must try to land elsewhere.  If the planes have used their full movements and their carriers have been damaged, the planes are destroyed.  Ouch!

That’s in the case USA attacks.

If USA was on the defensive side (Japan attacks USA fleet in sz6) the planes are allowed 1 step to find a safe landing space, not 4. That can be an Allied-controlled territory 1 step away or an undamaged carrier with room to spare 1 step away. In this particular case : Korea or Japan (if Allies control it) or a carrier in sz5/7/16/17/18/19.

From what I understand yes that will cause a declaration of war with Japan.  Also, I think if Japan controls Chinese territories bordering the mongolian territories, and Russia attacks first against one of those territories, then you will not get your 6 guys from mongolia.  Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

@knp7765:

So you are suggesting that the British player loses his capital so that he can sink the German navy? Seems kind of far fetched to me. Yeah, I guess if the German navy were taken out, it would help the US Navy later on and they could liberate London possibly. In the mean time, Germany got to plunder the British treasury and run hog wild on Russia while Italy gets strong in the Med and Africa since the UK can no longer replace their losses there. I suppose India could send stuff over to face Italy, but what if they are being pressured by Japan?

Yes, but Germany spent 2 rounds of income on a fleet so they essentially lose their ground units, probably some air units, the French treasury and whatever ground they have left would be sitting on London, assuming this worked/works.

So what’s holding back the Russians at that point?  They can DOW the round London falls.  (great, now I have that Fergie song in my head!  Bastages!!!)

YES I would certainly say so.

The current rule is (Pacific rules, page 16): If an Allied player attacks Japanese units in or declares an amphibious assault from one of these sea zones, the Japanese player can announce at the beginning of this phase that he or she intends to launch one or more kamikaze strikes in that sea zone.  They are resolved before any combat begins.

So the status of any land territories adjacent to the kamikaze sea zones has no relevance.

Thx WarDog, just wasnt sure I made my self clear!

Love the work u doing here btw, gr8 help when u got a major rule problem!

Cya around PPP