Sub question

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

@Charles:

4.  If your planes have any movement points left, they must try to land elsewhere.  If the planes have used their full movements and their carriers have been damaged, the planes are destroyed.  Ouch!

That’s in the case USA attacks.

If USA was on the defensive side (Japan attacks USA fleet in sz6) the planes are allowed 1 step to find a safe landing space, not 4. That can be an Allied-controlled territory 1 step away or an undamaged carrier with room to spare 1 step away. In this particular case : Korea or Japan (if Allies control it) or a carrier in sz5/7/16/17/18/19.

the rules ensure that the TTs cant really do double duty that way (you can use them twice but its not faster) though it is fun to imagine bringing along an extra transport during the US cross to load up those brave, brave, no-combined arms Frenchies from North Africa.  Or brits.  The rules just make it too choppy to implement very well.

A much better exploit is

flying into the attack with fighters u moved 4
landing them planes on an allied carrier, then it moves 3
then it gets attacked, you help defend, it blows up, you move 1 more

you moved 8 spaces with a fighter and fought twice in 1 turn lol

Good Point Krieghund… I had not thought of a carrier as a warship but corrected my post above.

Another thing you could do for the Chinese fighter if you would prefer it to be the same color as the Chinese troops is get one from Historical Board Gaming. They have these Allied Supplement sets in several different colors. One of them is called Celery Green which is the same color as the British pieces in old copies of Revised. This color is very close to the same color as the Chinese infantry pieces. The Allied supplement sets include P-40 fighter planes. You don’t even have to get the entire set because HBG sells these pieces individually. You can pick up 2 or 3 P-40s and there you go! Your very own Chinese fighter unit.
As for Artillery, HBG also has these Neutral sets in several colors and one of them is a yellow-green color. That color is a little brighter than the Chinese infantry, but it works okay with them and certainly is different from the US artillery. The Neutral sets have an artillery piece called a “75 Veld” which I think is Polish or Belgian but works fine for Chinese since they mostly had older stuff anyway.

Error, I meant a CA.  No CV available on G1.

The Russian NO deals with originally pro-Axis territories, so true neutrals that switch do not count.

Japan sitting off of Hawaii is fine; there is a sea zone between SZ 26 and SZ 10.

thanks krieg. my head was starting to hurt