ANZAC planes landing in Dutch territories (Java/Sumatra) on same turn they were taken by ANZAC

If ANZAC can afford to pull this off, then this shows that Japan is not putting pressure on ANZAC like it should be. The issue with ANZAC is that it is forced to play a defensive role for someone. ANZAC can make some offensive moves in early game if Japan doesn’t J1 on US. It’s navy supports the US fleet, it’s air power is supporting UK or USSR, and it’s land forces are defending the homeland. If ANZAC is able to afford bombers and carriers, either the Allies are in a major win swing or Japan ain’t doing its job.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37883.0

Any time you’re not sure about something, just post it to the FAQ thread and everyone can benefit from the Q&A

Plus, Krieghund reads every answer on that thread and makes sure it’s right

@Dark_Destroyer:

I thought you couldn’t blitz through neutrals?

I assume he meant after turkey was claimed.

@creeping-deth87:

I’m surprised there isn’t a more definitive answer. I CAN’T be the first person to think of doing this.

I’m not seeing anything in the rules that would disallow it. A carrier is a valid landing space for any fighter or tac bomber, the rules don’t mention ensuring sufficient capacity for landings.

It is pretty much definitive. It says you can’t send them on suicide missions (or some wording akin to that).

As the others have mentioned. You need to have a potential landing spot to send aircraft to fight. If only having 2 potential landing spots (assuming perfect rolls), you can only dedicate two air planes.

I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it, and we love the game.

Your understanding is correct, MarkVIIIMarc.  However, in scenario 2 the UK player has no casualty options that won’t result in stranding the fighter.  Since sub hits must be taken on sea units, the only casualty options are the one you chose or taking both hits on the carrier, dooming both fighters.  At any rate, taking the hit on the carrier and stranding the fighter is always an option.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)