Destroyer rule question

@andrewaagamer I have not heard of such a document, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

@Panther tanks

@Faramir said in Cruisers vs fighters [House Rules]:

What would you say to cruisers attacking and defending on a 4 without changing anything else?

Is this question for me ? Then make battleship A5 D5

thanks guys i appreciate it. cant believe ive been playin the wrong way for a while now. i had units counting one to get on and one to get off in NCM. so only tanks were able to. woops lol

Danke Herr Rommel.

I was mainly wondering because I watched a Young Grasshopper video and he said that sometimes there are misprints.
This will definitely help with my 1939 Europe game I made up using the European side of the 1942.2 map.
Thanks for the quick response!

Hey MGustav - welcome to the forum.

I think you are talking about a string of static transports allowing land units to jump from one to the next?

In which case - that is not how it works. In a single turn a nation can load land units on to a transport. The transport can move up 2 sea zones. Then the land units can disembark into a coastal territory.

The tanks having two moves is therefore irrelevant. The transport has two moves which it can use for land units of any type regardless of the movement value of each land unit type.

Of course if the transport does not need to move for a land unit to load and unload, for example from the UK to Western Europe, you have a static transport effecting a “bridge”.

Otherwise you might have transport(s) at each end of a sea journey moving backwards and forwards to deliver a constant stream of reinforcements.

Cheers
PP

It’s the attacker’s option whether he wants to stop and fight the sub or move on through.  If he attacks the sub then the destroyer must end its movement in that sea zone for the turn.

Last paragraph on Page 11 of the rulebook states that “An enemy submarine and/or transport does not block any of your units’ movement, nor does it prevent loading or offloading that sea zone. As the moving player you have the option of attacking an enemy submarine that shares a sea zone with you.”

@UrJohn:

I have read some criticism of the standard 9/10 VC victory condition, and it made me think about the victory cities.

Here’s what I came up with:
–The VCs don’t matter at all unless it’s the 9th for the Axis or 10th for the Allies for the standard victory or unless it’s the 13th one for the total victory. The IPCs, Industrial Complexes, and Capitals attached to the spaces matter, but the VCs themselves don’t.
–That last VC means everything.
–Players don’t necessarily worry about every single VC. Whereas, in the real war, both sides were majorly concerned with protecting all of those cities that belonged to their sides.
–Players will sometimes make otherwise ridiculous attacks on a VC when success in the attack automatically wins the game.

VCs on the 1st Edition of the game were useless, no one plays for the all-VC victory and the Axis could only get the 9 VC by conquering Russia, which pretty much meant game over since the Allies would concede at that point.
But on 2nd Edition, with Honolulu as VC the scenario completely changes for Axis. If the Axis retain Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai and Manila, while conquering Honolulu, Calcutta and Leningrad at the end of the US turn, they win without having to conquer Moscow. This makes the 9 VC scenario a lot more attractive for Axis - specially when the Allies go KGF and leave Honolulu up for Japan to grab.
And you need to worry about all the VCs - otherwise the US can land and liberate one for a single turn and deny the Axis victory.