Rule Clarification - AAA units

Unit Cost AA Pacific_Europe_Global 1940 2nd edition.pdf

@cwglee:

Ok thanks,
so then if the carrier is damaged or destroyed then plane is awarded 1 space to find a suitable landing space else lost?

That’s correct.

@taamvan:

You could even do a house rule for that, such that 1-3 US destroyers would be able to cross ATL and join/protect UK/ally fleets during defensive combats on turns 1-4.

I am currently working on a house rule where one can do that with Lend-Lease that US can transfer equipment.

I am also trying to set up a different rule for declaration of war where you can declare war but if you don’t have just cause, then you take a penalty for attacking but if you have just cause, then of course you’re free to declare war.

I was going to changed the let up of all units, try to get it to reflect actual WWII in 1940, for example USSR will actually have a Pacific Fleet as an example.

I was going to something crazy like put in merchant ships for Lend-Lease that will make convoy zones more useful and for pain in the A$$ to disrupted. So I had an idea setting up fighter units closer to real numbers ( I am making this number up to make an example) Let’s say I put ten fighters on London, I was going to make one of them a US fighter to represent Eagle Squadron, US will be neutral however because Eagle Squadron is in London, this is a “just cause point” for Germany and Italy to go to war with US.

I have other examples but this makes the point.

IN SOME SITUATIONS.

Yes planes can pass over any zone that contain enemy ships, enemy planes, or enemy units. Planes cannot pass over neutral countries. In sbr’s they have to fight their way in if escorted or not if they are intercepted. After the interception or not then they get shot at by aaa and then if they survive that they get to bomb the factories and the tac bomber’s can bomb the airfields and naval bases. You are right that in the older version the aa was always active but not anymore. Hope this helps! :-)

@StuckTojo:

@8thGuards:

@Ichabod:

I’m reading some revisionist history here.

Emplacing an oil embargo on Japan for murdering Chinese civilians by the bushel is hardly “enticing” Japan to attack the US on purpose.

From Japan’s point of view, it did not “have” to attack the US, but BELIEVED that they would eventually go to war with the US due to their war aggression. They’d been better off not doing so because America came at them with extreme vengeance. The power of the US was so great that one Japanese admiral described it as going to war against the world. In Pittsburg, PA, home of the Pittsburg Steelers football team, named after the steel manufacturing, more steel was produced in just that one area of America than Italy and Germany combined!

Since Japan lost a source of oil, they decided that they would seize other locations that contained oil like Java or Borneo. Doing so would essentially be “attacking” another western nation. Still, they could have done that without also simultaneously attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. The US public sentiment was really against going to war anywhere.

There was some limited activity in the Atlantic, but not widely publicized amongst the US population. And it wasn’t “war” like another poster suggested. They were naval operations which protected US Shipping from submarine attacks. The US did have a right to remain neutral and sell or provide war materials to whomever it wished. That in itself may be helping the war capabilities of an ally, the UK, but doing so is not in and of itself an act of war. Defensive naval operations is not essentially war. These types of actions happen daily out on the vast expanse of the ocean’s navigable routes and are not considered “acts of war.”

Sure the Soviets weren’t exactly nice to people whom they suspected of disloyalty but it was little compared to the industrial level genocide that Germany perpetrated or the casual mass killings done by Japan.
The Soviets lost 25-27 million people in the war, China lost 10-20 million and there is a very clear reason for that as I expressed.

Are you serious?!?!?!  The Soviets, under both Lenin and Stalin, killed millions - more like tens of millions - before WWII even started, over eight million Ukrainians alone in the forced famine, millions more by firing squad, slave labour camp, and gulag.  Not to mention the bungled invasion of Poland by Lenin and the even more bungled invasion of Finland by Stalin. Just because the “intellectual” class doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I believe 11-14 million under Stalin. Makes him one of history’s worst criminals, but still far less than Hitler with 30 million plus in the war he started and escalated (thus most victims in Europe can be assigned to him). Hitler is responsible for more Soviet deaths than Stalin is, even if the latter was complicit in Poland 1939-1941). Please don’t cite Cold War propaganda numbers.

A new generation of German historians also keeps finding that the Wehrmacht was far more aware of war crimes (and participated therein) than previously known. Throughout the Cold War Germany was allowed to uphold the “clean Wehrmacht” myth (and Soviet deaths in WW II were all counted as “killed by Stalin”) but that has by now utterly fallen apart.

ok now i got it. thx

Thanks very much.
Cheers!

E_D