Devastating US attack? - Potential safe landing space for planes

@ShadowHAwk Those units are essential to defend your capital, as well as France’s capital. There is no way around having a substantial defensive force if you want to win the game as the axis. Ideally all of those units could attack Moscow, but that is literally not an option. Germany can lose its capital turn 4 if you don’t have enough units to defend, and Paris can be lost to the allies turn 5 if you aren’t deploying enough units to prevent that.

Any war against the USA will get nowhere fast without the Money Islands. Therefore, attacking UK/ANZAC is an absolute must, so that you can rake in that badly needed +20 IPCs.

Don’t worry though. Unless ANZAC or France happens to have some navy that can get there to protect those US transports, they will be sunk and all the UK units aboard lost on Germany’s next turn.

@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.

Japan may be able to take any IC that the UK has/builds in Africa/Mideast.  A Japan that does a J4 along with sending its entire fleet into the Indian Ocean to take Egypt is tough to beat along with a successful German G1.

I think there is still a consensus that the allies are in favor at the moment.  However I believe the current rules are so close that it is going to take a few back and forths of which power is ascendant before we settle on the true leader.  That being said, I think leaving many of the rules as is would be fine.  Perhaps a reworking of NO’s, but leaving them at the same value.  You appear to be saying that depriving US of that initial 30ipc’s in NO’s their first round of war might do the trick as well?  This is entirely possible, if going this route however I prefer the idea of making US pay to upgrade their IC’s.  This equals about the same amount and doesn’t mean the US is getting a ‘free’ upgrade.

That was removed in the errata.

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense now