How does everyone feel about the new transport rules?

Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition

Players must agree on the following options before starting the game:

Which Scenario are we playing?
a) 1941
b) 1942

How many victory cities will we play to?
a) 13 cities
b) 15 cities (default)
c) 18 cities

Research and Development allowed?
a) Yes
b) No

National Objectives allowed?
a) Yes
b) No

Dardanelles closed to sea movement?*
a) Yes
b) No

Fighter Escorts and Interceptors allowed?*
a) Yes
b) No

*Found in the official corrections/FAQ located here: https://axisallies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/axis-allies-rules-anniversary-corrections-faqs.pdf

@Panther

Thanks for the clarification and quick response!

Thread fixed.  :-D

Keep in mind however, subs alone always reserve the right to submerge before even the Attacker rolls his dice. so essentially, without a destroyer, you can NEVER attack subs unless your opponent allows you.

Flying Tiger is correct.  Sorry if my original post was unclear.  :oops: I’ll try again.

You place an existing fighter on a new carrier by moving the fighter in either combat or noncombat movement, whichever applies, into the sea zone where the new carrier will be mobilized.  Air units don’t actually “land” until the end of the Mobilize New Units phase, though they must be in the space in which they will land by the end of noncombat movement.  The active player may only move pieces from one space to another during the combat movement and noncombat movement phases.

In Classic A&A, you can’t place fighters (new or existing) on new carriers at all.  In Revised, you can place existing fighters on a new carrier in the way you described in your original post.  In LHTR, it works the same way as it does in AA50.

I was just looking over the new AA50 board image and it occured to me how arbitrary the geography is in this game.

Why is the Belgian Congo in this game at all?

Spain is off limits, even though certainly in the realm of possible history/gameplay Spain could have been a major player or battlefield of WWII; a lot more of a possibility than French Eq Africa or the Belgian Congo which are indeed in play.

Certainly Turkey could have been a significant factor in this alternative universe of a game we call Axis & Allies than ever could have would been French West Africa or Rhodesia.

Yet there they are: Belgian Congo, French West Africa, Rhodesia all open for invasion. Spain and Turkey and others are closed off.

This is so ahistorical, we disagree about countless other nuances and rules about being historically deficient. Yet without Spain and Turkey, we are are not even accorded the ability to play out WWII in ways which could have indeed happened a lot more probable than the invasion of the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia by the Nazi war machine.

Why of all the possibilities of the Axis and Allies timeline/universe are these 2 of the more likely ones that could have happend are indeed shut down?