Transport rules don't make much sense.

Thanks for all your imput guys…  totally makes sense.

Yox

@cocotheflyingnut:

#1: Can Russia produce out of Germany? Or because their capital is gone, they no longer can produce anywhere?

You can’t purchase units if you don’t hold your capital.

@cocotheflyingnut:

#2:If Russia is taken over first, and then Russia takes out Germany, what happens to the money Russia would take from Germany? Does it go to the bank?

The USSR still gets the IPCs, but it can’t spend them until its capital is liberated.

@cocotheflyingnut:

#3: Does Caucasus become Japans? Does Japan have to put units in Caucasus for it to become theirs, or will it always be Germany’s unless Russia takes it back, and Japan takes it from them?

It will remain under German control until captured by an Allied power.  Japan can’t take it from Germany.

@cocotheflyingnut:

#4: If Russia was taken over from Germany, but Russia takes Germany, and you have Japanese units also in Russia, who has ownership of Russia, and who, if anyone, is allowed to produce there?

Germany controls Russia until it is liberated by an Allied power.  Germany can’t mobilize units there, since its capital is in enemy hands.  Japan can’t mobilize units there, since it doesn’t control the territory.  So, no one is allowed to use the IC until the situation changes (either Russia or Germany is liberated).

Absolutely correct, Battlingmaxo.  This concept is illustrated by the transport combat example in the FAQ.

@atarihuana:

ive seen many people hit sz56 yet often i refuse to do this and rather send 4 fighter to the BB for a clean kill. i dislike sending my only naval fodder unit to get killed round 1. also the british DD / TN off india gets kiled and the planes are in range.  the CA would  be at phillipines or at sz51 with the carriers.  so even if it is a tradeoff and i loose my BB, CA, DD  i still have 3 carriers + my naval builds while US has its remaining subs. not good.

since US has invested most to all of its money in the pacific its no big deal if it takes one more turn to take australia or india.

I had considered this as well.

I have even attempted it a couple of times.

I even thought of keeping the destroyer out and using only the fighters.

My conclusions:

The kill in SZ 53 is virtually assured.  It’s a matter of if you lose only the destroyer or also a fighter, if you send Destroyer, 2 Fighters in to attack the Battleship.

If you keep the destroyer, you risk a fighter, however, you have 9 fighters at the start of the game and 3 carriers, so you have some to spare.  Also, if you keep the destroyer, you can use it, in conjunction with at least 6 of your fighters, to attack SZ 56 if America puts submarines in the water.  This is a plus in my opinion because it means America either does not put only submarines in the water, puts them in SZ 10 instead, or builds surface ships which are more costly giving you an edge to get into position.

However, the added transport and Destroyer gives the American’s too much of an edge, IMHO.  Besides, when are you going to have a 33% chance to trade a fighter for a destroyer AND a transport (10 IPC for 15) and a 67% chance to lose nothing and get a destroyer and a transport in this game?

@Cmdr:

There are a few reasons I advocate the Karelian Attack on Germany 1……

Honestly, with only 4 AA Gun shots, there’s a 33% chance you won’t lost ANY fighters give or take. (I just used LL to estimate the chance.)  Even if you do lose one, and I wouldn’t expect to lose more than one, with a 50+ income for Round 2, I think you can afford the replacement fighter!

Have to smile at this one. I tried this on G1, and the KAR AA gun took out three, I say again, three of my fighters at the opening.  Who would have thunk?  :?

Needless to say, the loss of 3 ftrs and my amphibious force does not bode well for Germany’s prospects.  Maybe next time….

No, it takes a tanks its entire movement to load and unload from a transport.