Attacks on the Dutch causing war?

@AndrewAAGamer I’m not suggesting players should only buy battleships; I’m just saying they still have value in the game. My personal preference is for a balanced navy. While I still buy 3-4 times more carriers, I like BB for amphibious assaults and to absorb the first hits in any battle.

…And if you’ve never gone up against a misguided player, you really need to meet my friends. :grin:

@SS-GEN @betaphi It is gamey, it does permit extra moves. We usually call it a “strafe”. You can also get extra moves by squatting on a friendly carrier and riding along, though there are some downsides to that too (planes as cargo, etc.)

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units… :grin:

Thanks you two.

Strafe attacks would be the only possibility as you mentioned ShadowHAwk, but sods law if you strike too well! But it’s another curious question sorted out as there are many odd cinereous un answered here in this wonderful game haha

BH

:-P

@Hepps01:

Yah, I agree with you.  Especially in the situation provided where there was literally 0% chance of success.  The sub attack was simply an “Offensive fodder” attack done to make the fighter move “quasi-legitimate”.

To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase into the only potential landing zone and thus force the attacking player to win the secondary battle in order to ensure the fighter can land.  Otherwise this just enables people to do this kind of weak ass fodder tactic in order to get to the transports  that would otherwise be out of range.   This would then also mean that an attacker has to potentially sacrifice very valuable units (carriers) to accomplish these kind of delaying actions.

Just my opinion though.

From an emotional point of view I am with you here and as a fun fact in a current game I face exactly the ugly site of that move as he has Carrier plus sub in place which creates theoretical threats for all my transports. He can sac just a sub and then theoretically kill TTs in many seazones (for the price of saccing the Air of course).

However I like this rule because it gives the game some more dynamics and makes blocking a bit less powerful which I think is good for the game and does make you a bit less dependent on can openers and gives a power to overcome blocking at least a bit better without an allied power.

Thanks for the info

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.