New resources to track ipc's

@Aaron_the_Warmonger:

@simon33:

Dutch are allies. You don’t need to convert these territories to uk or Anzac control to land fighters on them. The fighters can be landed the same turn as the troops.

Are you sure?  looking at the rules i see under Dutch Territories in the pacific rulebook that They are treated as friendly to allies except for UK/ANZAC guardianship.  under friendly neutrals it says you may not attack a friendly neutral or fly air units over it, but may move land units onto it in noncombat.

I assume friendly meant friendly neutral.  So we assumed that until the dutch territory has been controlled since the start of your turn by an ally, you can’t land on it.  I would love some clarification on this if anyone has it (preferably with a rule’s citation!)  thanks everyone!

I’m sure. Dutch aren’t friendly neutral. Although the rulebook doesn’t make this as clear as I would like. Most convincing bit is here:
@Pac:

These two powers also have an arrangement with the
Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured
by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch
territories in the Pacific.

@AxisandAlliesGeneral:

then when the time comes that they are bordering Moscow, launch your massive counterattack with infantry, mechs, tanks, and aircraft, destroying them and losing only infantry. Then, once the critical European battle has been won, buy mechs and tanks and retake your territories.

Umm, this is rarely possible.

Although I tend to agree with your point about focusing mostly on the Europe side as USA.

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

I think UK should start with a fighter or Tac Bomber in Canada.
But we seem to be well beyond that.

NO’s aren’t collected before the game; otherwise, UK Europe would start with 34 ipcs, not 29.

UK is splt because is Empire was stretched around the globe. Money from Canada and UK and Africa more easily reach UK than India. On the other hand, the US in contingent and well connected by railways

I agree.  I always take Persia with UK asap

In our house rules we let TAC bombers choose a target at -1 on the dice roll. He can chose to do so.

Cruisers defending can force their hit on an opponents aircraft (instead of, say, a hit on a battleship).