America/Soviet Role

@Gargantua:

The rulebook is half clear.  It states that all combat moves must end in combat on Page #13
Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious
assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or
air units that may be needed to support it in the case that
defending air units are scrambled (see �Scramble,� page16).

My interpretation of that is scramble or no scramble, or even no airbase, I can move whatever I want in the combat phase to a friendly seazone to support that invasion.

Your interpretation is incorrect.  You may only move units that will participate in or support the amphibious assault into a friendly sea zone.  Air and sea units that will participate in the assault include transports offloading land units, battleships and/or cruisers bombarding, and possibly a warship to escort the transports (if needed because of an enemy sub that will be ignored - bombarding battleships and/or cruisers can fulfill this role).  Supporting units can include any type of air or sea unit desired, but can only be moved there if necessary due to the possibility of a defending scramble - there being both an operative enemy air base and eligible air units present.

As others have pointed out, the same criteria apply when determining whether units beginning the turn in the sea zone may move out of it during combat movement.  Such units restricted from moving out in noncombat movement are those that were actually involved in combat and transports that offloaded.

Don’t hide:  plenty of players are willing to play online with TripleA.  I used to be a horrible player a couple years ago, and now I am just a mediocre player.  I am glad that so many people were willing to school me on proper gameplay tactics.

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

Ghr2 is right mantle, you need a turn before russia attacks!  Use the london money to prep for russia or the american fleet… whichever is more threatening!  Like I said earilier, have Italy set it up so it’s appealing to attack them (aka keep the UK fleet in the Med).

Hopefully you understand a little bit better Zcion.  The Sealion is different in all the games of Global.  One time I was Germany, and was prepping for a Sealion and I failed my France attack!  Italy had to pick it up!  I was so mad, but went for the Sealion anyway, my UK player thought that since I didn’t have enough cash for a Sealion… he thought I was going for Russia.  Boy was he surprised lol.

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.

@Krieghund:

Yes.

Oh that is SOOO sweet! Wish I had known that previously.  I had not attacked a French Destroyer for fear of losing the non-Aggression NO for letting FIC be free (figured it was all or nothing.)  Ah well, my fault for not checking first!

@Gargantua:

Where does your playgroup live? Maybe we can how and play a game?

We all live in Northwest Ohio… Toledo specifically. It seems that not many people on this site live near us, otherwise we’d love to expand our group. You are cordially invited if you ever pass through.

Well, it seems that Darth Maximus made an error. I agree that no transports means absolutely nothing. That is, it means America can do next to nothing with real meaning. I didn’t say we/I don’t build transports early with the US, we simply believe in defense first: more combat ships than transports. It isn’t impossible to fight America, they are fallible and you do have to exploit their mistakes. It just isn’t always easy to see.

It is hard to fight America due to distance and economics. Ultimately, there is no stopping them. You simply have to delay them. Yes, I am reiterating what you have said and what we have been discussing; delay is the only way.

One just has to be wise about it, not wasteful. And it isn’t an easy job if the Americans know what they are doing. If one’s aim in the game is to strike the Americans I find it typically to be a distraction and a diversion for the Axis, one they cannot routinely afford.

As soon as I have anything official, I’ll post it.