Sub vs carrier w/ planes rules clarification

@aequitas-et-veritas @ssgen I should have flagged all of the old crew as well. Mobility means less on the smaller maps (AA50 even). Carrier manipulation is THE hallmark of G42/tournament play and all G40 variants. In my current game (G42/7 turns/221) against the relentless and indomitable MAPHEAD dave I have 5 Japanese carriers just to port all my planes around.

Oh ok thanks.

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.

I want to start it AND finish it.

The axis have more options, the allies are more reactive.  That’s not to say the axis are not reactive and the allies have no options, just which is their primary role.

Right now, the game is gambit-ish to me.  The Iceland Gambit, the Gibraltar Gambit, the SZ 9 Gambit, the Indian Gambit, the Australian Gambit, the American-Pac Strat Gambit.  That last is a bit less gambit like since it is seen coming a long ways off, it’s just mostly unstopable atm. Alpha 3 will fix that and we should see the American Pac-Strat be required, partially, with a required investment in Europe by America - either not happening should default a win for the Axis. yay

Yeah.  The fighters can scramble to defend, but without a destroyer present they can’t target the sub.

With the changes, Vichy rules probably aren’t needed. South France now has a factory as another avenue to getting German forces into the Med, and the overall balance seems better. The games will tell though.

I feel that the potshot rule adds most to gameplay. (also blocking makes no sense)

Subs, the AA of the sea  :wink:

Thanks!