Two quick questions…

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

Thanks that’s sorta what I thought

Yes, if there is a possible scramble there. Is probably a good idea sometimes.
If you are landing a unit amphibiously, yes it would take the territory unopposed. But you have too clear the Sea Zone first, of course. You fail and the unit stays on board.

Assuming that Japan and the US are not at war at that point in time, Japan can indeed do that.

Thanks for your answers they both helped!

Yes, I was referring to leaving from an island.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

“Facilities” Have fire as per the rules of an AA gun if they are strategicly bombed, they fire at bombers only.

It goes to the European economy.