Sea Zones: Can USA and Japan share one? (if not at war)

Sometimes it can get a little confusing in island sea zones which units are in the sea zone and which are on the island.  The statement is intended to make sure the attacker indicates which air units are which, since they can in many cases get to either space.

Hi,

Yes, I see how uDOW gives UK and Anzac some mean to avoid being in a difficult situation too early in the game!

MB

It depends on what side you are playing.  If your son is going to be Japan, tell him to follow the previous advice.  If you are playing Japan, follow the USA-killing strategy in the Pointlessly Broken thread and effectively win the game in turn 5.  Sadly something like 75% of the content in that thread is a needless flame war (as these boards are un-moderated for all practical purposes) but there is plenty of insightful commentary in there if you can suffer through it.

EDIT: I should point out that the war plans in that thread don’t translate that well into the Global game.  If the USA can afford to ignore Europe for the first several turns of the game, then it has enough to place into the Pacific that Japan won’t take it down.  Japan also has the issue of a possibility of expanding too quickly- since there are so many places it needs to reach, its forces will start to thin out all along the front.  At that point the Allies can start to pick off Japanese forces piecemeal and slowly turn them around.  I liken it to blowing up a balloon- if it gets too big, you can pop it.  The Japanese are protected from this effect on the Pacific stand-alone map since they will run into the edges of the map which provides cover for their flanks.

@mastermind93:

If I remember correctly, you can’t build a Major IC in a foreign territory. I do agree, though, on the importance of the Caroline Islands.

I think originally it was allowed. If not, i’ve been had ;)

@Krieghund:

@moralecheck:

The UK not only can’t land it’s units, but it has to endure one round of defensive fire from the scrambled unit(s) before it can retreat.  Any units on those transports are lost.

Not so.  Since it’s not the transport’s turn, it is not in the battle and can’t move.  The scrambled fighter simply prevents the amphibious landing without inflicting any casualties.

@moralecheck:

KH explained: A fighter can scramble to join a battle or against an amphibious assault.  It cannot scramble against ships that are just putting around its waters though.  This raises a new question, so I hope Krieghund is reading:  If I send transports (only), or even a fleet with warships to assault an island with scramblable (I made up a word!!) units, can I send a fighter into the waters with it, even though that is not really a combat move (but it will be if my opponent scrambles)?

Yes.  Just the chance of combat is enough to justify the move.

UK units on a US transport. Missed that.  My bad.

@SAS:

NOs represent political/economic conditions that have no strict military basis and so don’t “naturally” fit in the military game mechanic of A&A.  The Japanese people would have gotten a great morale boost from taking over a critical Allied city like Calcutta, Sydney, or Honolulu.  The Allies don’t get a boost from holding them because that doesn’t boost morale or give any sort of economic or political advantage from keeping those cities that they already had.  The Japanese would have had a great political playing card if they had been able to capture any of these cities.

Exactly.  What he said.

@Omega:

don’t forget the +1 the tac give to Fig. Its a very powerful tool on offensive!

No, it’s the tac receiving the +1. I still prefer a sure def of 4 than a maybe attack of 4. And figs are cheaper while bombers move more. Anyway, no harm having at least one tac just in case

Aye, and its one of the reasons i’m tempted to take my subs south on J1 instead of hold them for an attack at pearl.  You can only take so much from the UK on J2, and those subs would threaten there boats, and cost them IPCs.