Question: planes on newly liberated territories.

You’re right that this rule is ambigious in this rule book. But to me the intention of the game makers is very clear. That shows not from this rule book, but from all rule books after this version. For example in the rule book from 1943 2nd, They state specifically that all strategic bombing raids take place first. This resolves any argument about who pays the IPC’s to the bank, the attacker or the defender! Since they solved this in the next rule book, i think it is quite obvious what they intended and tried to correct.

thank you :)

A friend of mine and I are arguing over the interpretation of the attack/defend rules of basic combat. In the instructions it says to roll for all units with the same attack or defend value at the same time. Does this mean if I have 10 infantry units I roll one die for all ten or do I roll for each unit individually (10 Die)?

My thought was that if you roll one die for multiple units with low attack value (infantry), it keeps their offensive value low (making battle more realistic), but rewards large numbers of infantry units by awarding many hits on a successful attack/defend roll.
It seems a bit weird that a few infantry troops could very easily take out an equal number of  tanks.

Lemme know your thoughts. Official rules first, but favorite house rules welcome.

Yes.

@Corbeau:

@timerover51:

Your shore bombardment idea has been picked up in the Anniversary Edition rules, evidently.

Ya, i saw that, that’s great news :)
I can only wish i was the one to propose it to the game designer but it really is a coincidence. That was a house rule we used way back then. Still great to see he thought of it too. :)

I like the also th idea of BB acting as artillery support. Good thinking there too. I would not allow it for planes too, i find them already too flexible as a unit acting both in land and sea. I’d rather have them seperated in 2 classes, Land based fighters and CV based fighters. They already have the different molds for some nations, german stuka and Bf-109 for exemple. anyways, that’s another discussion.

For the BB acting like an AA, that’s exactly what i meant. Would give a reason to have one in a fleet.

You need to remember that roughly 2/3 of a carrier’s aircraft were attack planes, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, that would be used in support of ground troops.  This is the basis for the flexibility in fighters in A&A.  If you had a dedicated attack plane, like the Stuka, you could reduce the fighter’s role by a little bit, but by the end of the war, the US Navy’s Corsair fighter was carrying a bombload heavier than that of the Stuka, and delivering it with comparable accuracy.

As for BB getting an AA roll, that makes a fair amount of sense, and is pretty historically accurate.  Quite simply, BBs normally acted as a magnet for air attacks, even if a carrier was around.  The US South Dakato shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while escorting the carrier US Enterprise at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, while Adm. Raymond Spruance deployed his battleline in advance of his carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 to deliberately absorb Japanese carrier plane attacks.  However, the US did have the best naval AA fire control systems of the entire war, so what holds true for the US does not hold true for everyone else.  The Bismarck had major problems with defending against a limited number of British Swordfish, while the Italian BBs had similar problems.  The British were so-so, and the Japanese were close to hopeless until late in the war.  You could make it a National Advantage for the US, but I suspect that would not be acceptable to a majority of Axis players.  Making it universal is a bit of a stretch.  It would be up to you.

@4thmac:

THe situation:

Germany captures Congo from the Brits early in the game.  Then Berlin falls, with Congo still under the German flag.  Can Japan move a land unit into Congo to take control of that territory and claim it for income?

The Congo technically isn’t “liberated” when Japan moves in.  But Germany can’t do jack squat with it, so does it become idle until one of the Allies comes along?  That would seem crazy since the Allies would presumably benefit from leaving one of their territories under foreign control, because Japan could beat them back and earn income where the Germans could not.

LHTR 1.3 rulebook seems unclear on this issue.  Help!

No.

Germany retains control of the Congo.

Japan can only take the Congo if the Allies recapture the Congo, then Japan recaptures from them.

Just the way the rules have been in this game, going all the way back to 1st Edition, about 25 years ago.

You amphib in, and your other forces are supporting it… you all either live or die trying.

Both land and naval units that engage in combat remain in the area of combat and cannot be moved in the non-combat phase.  Retreated units have to stay in the territory/sea zone they were retreated to.  The only units that can move after Combat (and in fact HAVE to move in almost all cases) are aircraft.

If you need a basis in reality for this rule, consider those forces to be being re-supplied, repared, reinforced, replacing casualties, etc. as well as securing the area, reparing damaged infrastructure (bridges, airfields, etc) during the non-combat phase.  For retreated units, consider them to be regrouping, replacing lost equipment, etc.