Questions

Yes, on page 25.

Yes.

Yes.  They may move through a friendly sea zone that contains an enemy-controlled Convoy Center or Route during noncombat movment, but they may not take control of it when doing so.

Thank you sir!

I’ve just read through the rulebook again in more detail. Here’re my own interpretation to the questions you’ve raised, Inxduk. (Of course, everyone can has his/her own interpretation :D )

First, let’s talk about the term “adjacent”. On page 12 of the rulebook, in the section of Air Bases, it says “Aircraft … do not have to use up one movement to go between the territory and the sea zone in which the base is situated, or is adjacent to.” The meaning of “adjacent” here is obviously geographical. Then, if we assume that the terms through out the manual is coherent. It is reasonable to believe that the “adjacent” on page 24 has the same meaning.

Next, let’s discuss the matter of Naval Bases. In fact, I think that the rule listed in page 24 of the rulebook is very simple and clear. Notice the term used in the rulebook: “naval units”. It hasn’t said anything about a specific kind of naval unit. It says nothing about transport. In my point of view, the only restrictions on the use of the naval bases are: 1) Non-combat movement. 2) Starting and destination naval bases have to be friendly before the movement is made. 3) not more than 3 spaces. Once they are all fulfilled, you can do whatever you like. Therefore, I can’t see any point in prohibiting transports from doing such kind of action.

Just my 2 cents… :oops:

your submarines, if submerged during combat, then return to the ocean’s surface (to be attacked, for example) - i.e. they are brought back into play.
your battleships - if you assign a “hit” to them, are tipped over to signify that they have 1 “hitpoint” left. After the battle, if they remain, then they are uprighted to indicate that the engineers have done their job and the “hitpoints” return to 2.
i need to convince my dad to play with me. you’re lucky.

if thats true, that gives japan even more of an edge…

Yes you’re right and that I guess is my problem. When you get right down to it the japanese were simply out of their minds . nevertheless the VP system is silly there has to be a better way to mimic historical goals. Japan did know it had to project enough power to make the U.S. (in their ninds) come to terms. The fact that we never would have done that is irrelevent though for Japan in history as in the game has a hard time doing much of anything but hang on in the face of U.S. industrial power.However the concept that china is worthless to the Japanese seems untrue to me . again I will close with a thought that through our new computer age you could easily create a scenario where all had the same map but had to discover for themselves where the enemy is making alliances all the more important etc. It better mirrors reality. What if we did not know what the other nation was producing necessarily or when and where? We all learned the rules before puberty when we played war in the woods, the key was not the most guys but the best, build good defenses and sneak up on the other guy find out what he’s doing and ambush him. Simple as this if you can’t ambush the outcome is solely tied to the card game war not real war strategy. Oh god I just ruined this damn game for myself AAAAGGGHHHHHH!!!