Simplify Rules

So happy to finally get the clarification on this. It’s been bugging me. As usual, it’s in the rulebook somewhere, just needed to find it!

bananasling, if memory serves me correctly, the way you interpreted the rules was the way older versions of the game were played.

Not only can you do this with navy but with land.  You can attack and capture a territory then with your non-combat phase move tanks (that of course did not participate in any combat) through that newly captured territory and beyond it to a friendly territory on the other side to say reinforce an ally’s position.  Krieghund will correct me if I am wrong but when it was done to me for the first time….its hard to forget.

That’s correct.

It seems to me that the map for Spring 1942 is a considerable upgrade compared to the classic edition.  It allows for much more variation in strategy and is more accurate physically.  The exception to this is in North America, they just added central US worth 6 IPC’s (which makes sense… few games come down to tactical decisions in that area).

Anyway I’ve sketched a proposed alternate North America, and am considering rendering a full size replacement map to include the alteration.  I’d very much like to get some input from more experienced players before I spend the time and money creating the board.

The thing is I can’t figure out how to add the image to a post.  Describing it in text would be ineffective and maddening all around.  Please help!  I can email it.  But I understand that reasonable people might not want to open an attachment from a stranger.

It’s an attractive game board though. I’ve seen some of the original AA boards and they were hideous. I think it serves the purpose of getting people into the series well. We’ve added D-Day to the game list. The games get very heated and the players are very competitive, this last game was sort of a buzz kill because it was over in only 3 rounds and seemed too easy, I was convinced we must have been doing a lot of things wrong, and I think I’ve realized all of those things now. =)

Indeed SZ 3 is adjacent. And they could have made a little effort to make this clearer on the board…. At least IL did on his custom maps…

Fighter escorts yes, Dardanelles no. Fighter escorts makes bombing campaigns more challenging than simply building fleets of bombers and sending them.

Regarding the Dardanelles rule it limits the options for nearly all powers in the Med:

Germany’s Med fleet is reduced to striking Africa. It can’t help pressuring the Russians on Caucasus or dealing with any incursions on Ukraine. Russia R1 tactic of building a submarine to sink the German fleet is removed (the only time on the entire series of games where the Russians can build ships!) The US cannot set a transport chain to reinforce Caucasus (rather a waste of resources but I’ve seen enough people trying it). Japan can’t threaten Caucasus with amphibious landings (which usually makes pressure on the Allies to close the Suez)

Since the game is considered already balanced by most players I disagree that having the rule goes towards balancing it, since I can’t see 1 side getting a big advantage by having it closed.

The main argument thus to use the rule is the historical situation but the game does not intend to fully reproduce History, I so guess it is mostly a matter of taste regarding playability/historical accuracy.

Thank you again, Krieghund!
I had the wrong meaning of ‘combat round’, now everything makes perfect sense.
Great job!