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

There is a special rondel shaped land-bridge that connects the non-island of Ireland to Scotland.  But, not in real life.  So you can drive across that, though why is a different question.

However, the Aleutian Islands are islands–you can’t drive there as I once allowed the crew to do.  Which makes it especially annoying for Japan to take, since it requires an amphib to regain your NO.  HTH

From what I understand yes that will cause a declaration of war with Japan.  Also, I think if Japan controls Chinese territories bordering the mongolian territories, and Russia attacks first against one of those territories, then you will not get your 6 guys from mongolia.  Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, I’d let them remain Dutch too.  One of the points of this house rule idea is to give the Dutch their own units, to rectify their rather odd status of having their own map roundel but no actual combat forces – so if the Dutch units were converted into plain old UK or ANZAC units when one of those countries lands in the DEI, it would spoil the fun.  And from a historical point of view, it’s likewise accurate to keep them Dutch: the Dutch components of ABDACOM remained Dutch during the DEI campaign, even though they were part of a coalition.

I also agree that the Dutch infantry units should gallantly fight and die where they stand.  As Marshall Mac Mahon famously said at Sevastopol in 1855, “J’y suis, j’y reste!” – here I am and here I will stay.

I think the point is, all three of my opinions infer that Germany is waiting until at least round 3 to declare war on Russia.  Personally, I see no good reason to declare war on them before then anyway and, personally, I prefer to have Italy declare war on Round 3 with Germany maybe not even declaring war on Round 4…that way Italy can take the road and Germany can reinforce it.  That allows Germany to collect the NO for Russia and move towards Moscow.

@knp7765:

Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).

Still, doesn’t this seem logical to you guys? That an occupation force would call for air cover from a carrier or air base if counter-attacked?

Here is the HR I can probably use:
An adjacent operational Air Base provides up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
Each carrier can provide 1 plane in an adjacent land territory (Fg or TcB).
An adjacent territory can provide 1 plane (Fg or TcB).

In any situation, keep this limitation:
it is up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB) max which can be scrambled into an adjacent territory under attack.

In addition:
any territory under attack can allow an aerial retreat for 1 single plane (Fg, TcB or StB) or up to 3 planes (Fg, TcB or StB) if there is an operational AB, the range is only 1 territory or SZ move.

Does anyone see some specific drawback to this limited two ways: inward air-support/ outward air retreat?

If the rule is kept within the same limit as the scramble rule in a SZ, players are already taking account of this special air reinforcement, it shouldn’t be difficult to watch it even if it is applied on land territories. What do you think?

yukon and bc were combined into western canada.

thank you for the answers, that was my understanding aswell, but my group couldn’t agree on it so i wanted to clear out things.

Thanks