If an airbase is bombed, can infantry still paratroop?

The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.

You might be able to fly some US fighters to India via sub-Sahara Africa to India. If Japan cannot get India until J5, they may get there in time to save India.

Also, on turn 2 maybe the French fighter can start flying to Moscow from Scotland, than maybe get to India in time to help defend it. Or have it fly on turn 1 to sub-Sahara Africa route.

This is not a winning solution but it might buy some time.

I agree with both Bold and Cow.

Bold is right: 99INF is not a viable bid to demonstrate anything. It does not take away the risks (at all!) against a top axis player.
I also agree partially with Cow (after some more study) about the USA. Cow feels the USA is outright bad. I feel that the USA is indeed off-balanced.
This is because A). Japan can take Calcutta and keep it untill ~J9 when it attacks Hawaii with a fleet/invasion force worth ~600TUV and B) this cannot be dodged by US DD blockers, since Germany can fly some STR to Japan to remove them.

In other words: the USA cannot block off Japan indefinately, attacking the IJN if it moves forward in order to get in range of Hawaii. Therefore the USA must defend with a fleet worth ~570TUV (considerably more than what is needed for an attack on a blocked-off IJN) to prevent a Pacific loss for the allies, which leaves the USA with no more than a ~100IPC investment in the Atlantic for the first 9 turns…

The charm of A&A just dropped from 10 to 3 points on a scale of 0 to 10 for me. The 3 points left are for playing against players who are not aware of this loophole, thus not forcing me to go KJF.

I admit that this is not spelling doom for the allies because they can still go KJF, playing the allies in Europe like Gamerman said in another thread, but I find it highly disappointing that a KJF is the only way to go for the allies against this Japanese exploit (of what I call a loophole).
I’m afraid the easiest way to fix this while keeping all other rules intact, is to correct/improve the current victory conditions (G40.2) in such a way that the USA regains the option of going Europe heavy. To a certain extend, ofc, because largely ignoring the Pacific should still be punishable with loosing the game.
Brainstorm: why not set the axis victory conditions to 13 Victory Cities total. Europe heavy allies can prevent the Euro-axis from getting >6VC but then Japan will take 6VC (Hawaii), totalling 12 for the Axis and the battle for that 13th VC still looks like a tough way with a LOT of options to go for both sides…

No neither is gamey in my book, it’s part of the game that can lead to a victory (should be a 1 or 2 trick pony). Once your group see’s these moves, it’s up to your opponent to do something about it. Our group see’s a couple Italians at the Russian front often, which can help the Germans to push deeper into Russia. So if this is happening the Russians might need to picket with 2-3 inf in key territories, so you have a chance to kill off the Italian ground unit(s). A few Italians can allow you to sack some Russians, or simply bring your German air to the front so the Russians can’t strafe your German stack w/o air cover. Can also get you to Stalingrad or Caucasus faster, but often times it risks your German mech/tanks if the Russians see it and set up a counter. Sometimes Russia has to deal with a 3 ring circus if both Italy and Japan are knocking on the door w/Germany, it is up to the other Allies to even up the score. Even if Moscow falls, it’s all about what they can take with them, and if the western allies are in position to put the hurt on. Besides, if those Italian bombers are picking off Russians, they aren’t helping much in the Med (although the range allows them to threaten both theaters through the Black Sea).

@knp7765:

@kcdzim:

And Allied units that enter original USSR territories should be “interned” - removed from the board with infantry (and infantry only) showing up back in their home capitals a couple rounds later in equal numbers to the units interned   :wink:

In the original Europe game, they had a rule if UK or US planes landed in a Soviet territory with an IC, on the Russian Mobilize Units phase, they could be turned into Russian planes.

I always wondered about something like this.  Considering the equipment lend lease that USA had with USSR I would of thought “gifting” units to Russia should be acheived in someway.  Of course who knows what that would do to balance.  I guess the the Archangel NO is their to represent the Lend-lease activities.

@hardyworld:

Please tell me that it is actually happening for both games this year!  I’m getting anxious.

See: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26719.0

@calvinhobbesliker:

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

even durind an amphibious assault?

Yes. Planes can always retreat. The only things that can’t are units which came via transports

But to add:

If the amphibious assault is called off during the naval battle before the units on the transports disembark, any planes (and land units attacking from other territories) that commited to that fight still have to go through one round of combat before they can retreat.

Gotta correct you on that Dessert Fox.

If a naval battle occurs in the sea zone prior to the amphibious assault, then you have the option of retreating your navy as per normal BEFORE any round of fire.  This includes the transports involved.

If the naval battle is resolved and the land units are offloaded into the hostile territory, THEN they cannot be retreated and are forced to fight it out.

If you realize in time that your navy is not gonna last against the defending one in that sea zone before the amphibious assault can even go through, you don’t HAVE to sentence your entire navy (transports included) to now certain death.  You declare an amphibious assault assuming that you can win the sea battle, but the sea battle itself can play out just like any other.