Aircraft carrier and 2 fighters?

It’s not allowed.

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

The KGF strat is not about ignoring Japan, no countries can be ignored, it’s just that allies cant do much against Japan for the first 2 rnds, and Japan can be partially ignored early in the game. The KGF strat involves slowing Japan down as much as possible, but most resources goes against Germany.
The reason why KGF is most popular among the best players is because a good axis player will make a too strong Germany if only Russia and UK tries to stop them.

And there is no such thing as KGF fanmania, it’s about the-most-effective-strat-fanmania :)

There is not really a KGF for many (99%) Revised games. A true KGF will include some US naval units to Pacific to distract Japan and force fight it … I only had seen a true KGF once in my PBEM games and it was in AA50. 99% of players do a Try Ignore Japan strat that includes sending all stuff to Europe and Africa, even the starting Pacific fleets. Most (99%) of players will counter this making a JTDTM, while some others will counter with a Polar Expres, that’s why I call the “so-called KGF” a “Try Ignore Japan (if you can)”
Allies can do a Ignore Japan strat only if Japan lets them. In my games I noticed that Polar Express is, at least, as good as JTDTM, and I’m pretty sure that Polar Express can improve because it has been used less (many play by memory with TIJ-KGF)

The funny thing is when in some games Japan gets diced J1 and anyway allied player lets Japan breath and TIJ just because they think that a Pacific Fleet is useless

My point is that in this or any future A&A games many players will never stop from trying ignore Japan, no wonder how bad idea is, how many income have Pacific Ocean and mainland Asia, how bad gets Japan diced, how good can be Polar Express or how boring can be ignoring Japan. KGF is a religion

If they try that in Global 1940, Japan will destroy everyone with its 2 BB, 3 CV, and lots of transports/income.

You’re welcome.

FYI - LHTR is a variant ruleset developed by Larry Harris (the game’s designer) and officials from tournaments and on-line clubs.  It fixes some rules and balance issues in the box rules, and it’s probably the most widely-played Revised variant.  Most of its concepts were integrated into the 50th Anniversary Edition rules.  If you’re interested in trying it, the rules can be found here.

No.  Subs only fire in the Opening Fire step, which happens in each combat round.

:roll:
Oh well yes for sure!
The seaplanes on  the deck of the sub would most certainly be sunk by the underwater super secret FlaK guns!
I mean that is what they were designed to do don’t you know. :-P

@Craig:

@Krieghund:

That’s interesting, Craig, but I don’t know that using the Gleemax on-line game’s behavior as an argument in a rules discussion is really valid at this time (even if it does support our position!).  There are a few things that it does that are not exactly “according to Hoyle” right now.  Hopefully, the bugs will be fixed soon.

You are right that there are still many bugs in the game, but I don’t think that this topic is one of them.

I agree that the on-line game is doing this particular thing correctly.  My point was that if you use the on-line game to support a rules argument, you set a precedent for others to do the same.  In future arguments, the on-line game may be incorrect in the way it handles the particular rule in question.

For example, the on-line game was allowing land units on transports to be taken as casualties in naval battles.  (This may be fixed by now, but I don’t know for sure.)  Do you really want someone arguing that this is legal because the on-line game allows it?

@Krieghund:

I thought I saw a thread somewhere (BGG?) where the designer of the computer game talked about working with Larry on this project, so I think that this was taken care from the right source. :wink: :-D

Actually, they said that they worked with Wizards of the Coast.  Larry wasn’t mentioned by name.  I’ve already pointed out a couple of problems in their “official” rules interpretations in that thread, one of which directly contradicts the FAQ.  If they’re all that “official”, why are they posted on BGG instead of the Avalon Hill site?

They are nerfed in LHTR, but they still do better than regular bombers.  I’d still make sure I was extra aware of how many bombers my opponent had if they had this Technology:

Average IPC damage with regular bombers: 3.5IPC
Average IPC damage with heavy bombers: 5.5IPC

Chance of hitting with regular bombers on attack: 66.7%
Chance of hitting with heavy bombers on attack: 88.9%