Offloading In Both Combat And Non Combat Movement

The page 7 reference is to the chart at the bottom of the page called “Spaces on the Game Board”.  It defines an island group as a game board space.  A land territory is also defined as a game board space, so the definition on page 8 of an island as a territory located inside a sea zone also defines it as a separate game board space.

There’s also this FAQ entry:

Can a fighter take part in a naval battle in a sea zone and then in a battle for the island in that sea zone?
No. The island is not part of the sea zone; it’s a different map space that is adjacent to the sea zone but not part of it.

Another reason it isn’t a bad idea is b/c like on Gleemax you have time limits on turn movement.  As Japan most of the time I have a lot of logistics to move around and can’t do that as fast as other players.  I’m sure the US is in the same boat (ha ha  :lol: I made it funny).  So that balances it out.

The bad thing is if you want to undo that non-combat move you did in the combat phase you can’t.  So you should always try to make your moves in the correct order.

LT

@ShadowHAwk:

Can i agree with the fact that in the current rules the carrier does NOT have to move if the fighter was destroyed, but at the same time not agree with the rules itself ?

Because it is not logical that the carrier does not start its move to meet up with the figher at the same time since it it start after the figher completed its move in a normal situation it would not be there on time to catch the aircraft.

Basicaly the time it takes for the carrier to get there is the same as the time it takes for the fighter to get there and since the carrier needs to be there at the same time in order for the pilot to remain dry it logical should start sailing in the general direction of the pickup point.

Since the Fighter in question could be “flying” from Gibraltar to the Caucus in one turn, I don’t think the model of aircraft taking off and landing as part of a days flight operations on a Carrier quite applies.  Especially since Naval aircraft are built very differently from land based aircraft yet the game makes no difference between the two.

Oh, okay, that makes a bit more sense.  I guess I haven’t looked at the new rules in a while, so that’s why I thought the way I did.

You can also drive tanks that were not engaged through the territory to a friendly territory on the other side.  Good way to open up reinforcement routes in Europe.

you can also move units into an enemy seazone that contains only enemy submerged sub(s).

@ncscswitch:

@jsp4563:

The battle board even has a spot on the attaker side for transports with an attack value of Zero.

And as came up in the Allied fleets on “attack” discussion here and at Harris Game Design, that battle board is more than jsut a playing aid, it is indeed part of the rules themsevles.  So, a zero attack space for TRN’s means that under teh rules, TRNs can attack (they just can’t hit anything)

Which is BS.  Gosh bless it, if they can shoot down attacking planes, why can’t they ram submarines!  Bah huddlebugs and sassaphrase roots!!!  (I’m just being silly.)

No, I would have to say that move is impossible. The farthest that sub could move towards Africa is down to be just north of France. Sounds like someone pulled a fast one there, man. :-?