Is a Major IC Reduced to a Minor IC after been conquered?

If the idea is to control southern USSR and let northern USSR alone with a IC Romania then you should really debate about going after Persia and then decide to go east to India or west to Egypt.

thx!

No, you are not missing anything. That is a perfectly legal move. I am assuming that the Allies still control Gibraltar, right?

In fact, in your example, since Gibraltar has a friendly naval base (assuming it hasn’t been bombed), the US fleet could go all the way to Sea Zone 95 and park right next to Italy if Italy had no ships there OR they just had submarines and/or transports. Even if Italy had fighters on their air base, they couldn’t scramble because it is the US NON-combat move.

You can basically move your ships to any sea zone you want as long as there are no enemy surface warships blocking your way, or as in your example you have cleared any enemy warships.
Of course, that US submarine would have to remain in the sea zone just east of Gibraltar since it moved in the combat movement.

Egypt IC is h20 solid. Depends on your overall strategy in relation to the axis.

you can get fighters to fly to russia 2) you can do the convoy thing to italy 3) you can guard it with 3 inf a turn spam 4) sometimes you need naval for Japan and shazam wam bam there you go!

When is it not good?

persia is a faster route to flying fighters to russia 2) Italy not an issue and you making naval off of london to do drops 3) if you lose the complex before using it or will lose it anyway 4) union can be used to pump out naval for Japan if you really need to do it.

Along with the damage if it was never bought off before it can be upgraded.  It could be a 26 IPC expense for the original owner to upgrade it back to the major.

Ty Kdczim, dunno why I thought otherwise! Maybe from old rules ? But ty!

PPP

hmmm, I think the only territories you can land aircraft in and not own is The DEI for ANZAC and UK.  Not sure if you can land an aircraft the turn you take a pro neutral.  I mean its not combat…

@kcdzim:

@Rorschach:

Consider it that the fighter escorts would have peeled away before they get to the actual facility (lack of range and/or their job of defending the bombers against interceptors is already acomplished so no need to risk going down from AA gun fire as well).

Thinking of it like that makes sense to me.  Interceptors would be intercepting as far AWAY from the facility as they possibly can, while the AA gun is fixed AT the facility.

Not to mention that AA flak is rather indiscriminate.  If it were firing on the escort, it would be firing on the interceptors as well, and the dogfight would be occuring in the thick of the flak.  And that’s not what the defender would want to do (and it would suck in the game cause the defender might lose more than the attacker due to friendly fire).  Especially since it’s the escorts duty to peel the interceptors away from the bombers and NOT keep the dogfight in the same area.

Yes, I was going to go into a much more detailed explanation including all this but time was a restraint (I was at work when I made that reply).

Really, it just makes sense if you think about it.  :)

If your (fixed position) AA guns are firing into the skies, it’s too late to scramble interceptors as this means the bombers are already over their targets AND you’d hit your own interceptors just as often as you’d  hit the enemy bombers.  Escorting fighters would have turned back before entering AA gun range so as to mitigate losses (once the bombers are over their target, no need to risk losing extra fighters that aren’t going to help out in the raid)!  AND, once the bombers are dropping their payload, what’s the point of intercepting them anyway as the damage is already done!