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

@pokemaniac:

The big issue is ANZAC effectively producing at Persia. In any game ANZAC is extremely vital in wearing down Japan. The US can can-open destroyers screens and allow ANZAC to get through to take islands or attack small Japanese navies, and ANZAC ships and air are also crucial to the defense of the US fleet. Even if the US goes 100% Pacific, if it gets virtually 0 support from ANZAC (which will be the case if ANZAC is building in Persia) it will be hard pressed to advance on Japan.

Even ignoring the value of ANZAC’s units against Japan, the biggest problem is that ANZAC just can’t build well at Persia. If ANZAC is going for a Persia factory, they are going to be making 12 IPCs a turn after Japan declares war since they won’t be trading islands. That is 3 ANZAC mech in Persia. ANZAC units can only help to defend UK stacks, as opposed to UK units which can be used offensively as well. ANZAC also can’t afford to build 3 fighters in Persia ever, unlike the UK. Those fighter builds are often crucial to holding Moscow, while also giving the UK a lot of flexibility in the Mid East.

The UK can just build a factory in Egypt, but planes there take 2 turns to get to Moscow which can really be a problem.

In short I just don’t see any benefit in taking away a prime factory location from the UK and giving it to ANZAC who can barely make 3 cheap units a turn there. This also of course essentially removes ANZAC from the Pacific theatre, where it is sorely needed.

Brazil is the same concept. ANZAC Brazilians can’t really be used offensively anywhere, unlike a US or UK controlled Brazil. Plus it is sending ANZAC transports a long way from the front that they are most effective on.

ANZAC planes in Europe could be helpful, but by the time they could get to Europe it is unlikely that they’d have much to can-open and they would be spending a useless 3 turns or so in transit as opposed to 3 turns being used against Japan in some fashion.

Nice ideas, but I find ANZAC to just be best used to pester Japan and defend Australia if needed.

I completely agree with this, although I have never tried ANZAC in Persia. To me it seems like a hassle.
1. you need to protect UK transport from beeing blown up by italy 1. Does this imply no taranto?
2. ANZAC can activate Persia end of R2, This means factory R3 and units deployed end of round 4.
3. I like to have a UK factory there and shuffle UK fighters to Moscow easily if need be. Basically ANZAC units are not doing anything useful before R5ANZAC. Does not seem worthwhile to me. It is a nice noval, idea though

Russia would have to put a lot in India to be able to hold it, or are you saying that the allies could hold Yunnan with Russian support?

I have, in general, purchased a naval base for Japan anyway, since it allows for a quick dash to India or down to Australia from that sea zone.  Yes, you can get to both from Malaya, but as pointed out, it’s not a one step jump from Japan to Malaya and back to Japan.

I also find that 8 transports is the magic number for Japan anyway.  It’s just so flexible.

@Larrie:

@Eggman:

@snake11eyes:

@Jeff28:

If you retake paris Germany would get another 19 ipcs, right?

The IPC bonus is only for the first time you capture a capitol.

There is never a bonus for capital captures except for the Russian NO regarding Berlin.�  Jeff28 is right, if France somehow recaptures Paris F1, then they will collect income at the end of their turn which will just be harvested again by Germany on G2.�  It may feel like you’re getting some kind of bonus for sacking Paris, but you’re just collecting their starting income that they never get a chance to spend.

Not true. There is a German NO (bonus) for controlling Moscow, 5 IPC’s.

You misread my comment.  I was replying to a person who seemed to claim that you get a bonus the first time you capture an enemy capital.  That has nothing to do with the NOs for holding a territory.

Instead of thinking of it as the planes “moving with” the carrier, remember that the planes take off from the carriers into the air at the start of the combat move. Then the planes and the carrier actually move independently of one another.

It just happens that usually that more often than not your planes are going to land on the carrier and they will move the same number of spaces.

@otahere34:

This is off subject but has to do with the fact of the U.S. building a minor IC in korea. Can they move within striking distence of that when there not at war even though Japan can not end movement withing 2 zones of alaska or the western U.S.?

Yes.  The United States is only prohibited from being next to Japanese soil in the Pacific.  If they want to leave their fleet next to SZ 6, but not in SZ 6, they may do so.

Yes that is my bad, i forgot we were play testing a house rule at the time.

By the way, this sealion airstrike scenario is also the reason why Britain starts out with a mech.  It can go to Eireland and back to London in time for the invasion.