Multi-national forces

@The_Good_Captain
Thanks Cap

@Panther WILD BILL
less than a minute ago

Thanks Panther, for pointing out the rule’s clarification doc.

@Krieghund perfect - thank you very much!

@burmaboi The rules consistently use the term “into” when referencing the ending space of a unit’s move and “through” when referencing spaces passed through along the way. So, an air unit must conduct combat if it moves “into” an enemy-occupied space, but not “through” one (other than being fired upon by AA guns). Also, on page 14, the rules mention AA guns in “flown over” territories, which indicates that enemy-occupied territories may be moved through, and the Official Rules Clarifications make the same reference on page 2 in point 6 regarding AA guns.

@the-captain

It looks great!

@Morgrim16

Hahahaha! Just stumbled upon this and you’ve got to give him credit for creativity.

Hbombers are far more powerful than any defensive naval unit you could add including loaded Carriers which are actually weak as they risk not just the navy but also a nations defensive airforce as well. 4-5 HBs can destroy just about any navy from my experience. It may cost a lot in terms of lost bombers, but these can be rebuilt lost bbs, Carriers, ftrs cannot.

I agree that the HB would severely restrict the movement of this Allied Navy, my only point being that it could be built without being sunk.

But how did the issue of HB come up? I guess you are assuming thats how the Allied (or Japanese) Navy is eliminated. HB (along with IT IMO) is almost always a sure win in the game for whichever nation has it.

Russia’s give’s you a neat challenge so I like it best…