Can air units fly over a strict neutral, if other units are also attacking that neutral?

@LewisClark The UK is split into two economies, not two powers. The UK player, if I understand your predicament correctly, can still move ALL their pieces on both sides of the board. They simply cannot purchase/collect income on the Europe side. There is no Europe/Pacific control of the pieces as all UK pieces are moved at the same time since they share a turn.

The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.

If I am playing a non-balanced mod game of G40, I always bring Russian mech/tanks and a couple of planes to help out China.  They often can help fortify Yunnan for a critical round, or have an opportunity to blitz into Malaysia for the big bonus and additional headache.  If things are not looking promising in China, the fast movers can make it back to Moscow before they are needed for a final assault on the capitol.  If China has more income and Japan is hurt in the mainland of Asia, USA can spend additional income in the Atlantic.  That more than compensates for the reduced units in the European theater.  In fact, if the Allies can keep and fortify Yunnan, they have a very high chance of winning.

@Boldfresh:

honestly, i think this game is awesome with it’s CURRENT setup.  i feel like the allies need nothing.

I don’t see how the axis can lose in this setup if the allies receive nothing.

Someone on BGG has a global 2e map with the setups. Check either the Europe 1940 or Pacific 1940 games there.

@Cmdr:

I like bizarre moves.  For non-regulation games (non-tournament, non-league) because it puts the other player off and might show you something neat that you can use for regulation play.

I’ve seen MANY players land Germany in Brazil and put a complex there.  Good way to annoy the crud out of America (Italy would be better, but sometimes they’re not in a position too.)

Seen invasions of Canada as well (in Alpha 3.9 no less!) with mixed effects.  What happened there, once, was that the landing happened, America went full ground forces and japan sunk the American navy - it was a suicide move, but it worked.  Germany lost like 200IPC worth of ground units, but AMerica lost at least that much in naval units, probably more.

So bizarre moves have their purpose.  Canadian shield was bizarre, then mainstream, then bizarre again.  (And yes, I’ve been known to pull it out once or twice in a “classic” game since nO ONE sees it coming anymore!)

The US navy could not sneak out of the Pacific?

For clarity -

A Blitz is defined as a combat movement where a tank or mech/tank pairing enters an unoccupied enemy territory, captures it, and moves to a second territory as a single combat move.

Any other movement of two spaces, whether during combat or noncombat, is NOT a Blitz and should not be called a Blitz.  It’s either a combat move or a noncombat move, but not a Blitz.

This is important because Mech Inf can always move two spaces as a combat or noncombat move, provided it’s not a Blitz. Calling such moves “Blitzes” implies that Mech can only move two spaces with a tank under every circumstance, and that is NOT the case.

Does this site allow explicit images such as swastikas?