Blocker Question

You only need to move the carriers there if you have to land planes on them.

In order to move the planes into combat you first must show your opponent that you can make a legal landing spot with your carriers by moving them into position on non-combat movement phase. If the planes survive combat you must move the carrier(s) to land the plane(s). If the planes don’t survive you can choose to do whatever you want with the carrier(s).

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

No, you can’t do that.

@rulebook:

…
If your side (but not necessarily your power) controlled a canal or narrow strait at the start of your turn, you may move
sea units through it (you can’t use it in the same turn that you capture it).
…

HTH :-)

It could have been worded better IMO.

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

YES I would certainly say so.

@Cmdr:

Yea, theoretically, it is possible to get the Armor from Romania and/or Hungary and/or W. Poland to Moscow in 3 turns.  Actually in 2 turns.

Realistic?  I hardly think so.  Your best real chance is at a minimum of round 4 and more likely round 6 if you declare war on Germany 1.

Which is a thought, has anyone tried declaring war on Russia round 2/3 and started an invasion early?  I wonder On round 1, it is theoretically possible to kill 7 Russian infantry, sink a Battleship and a submerge a submarine (unless he wants to stand and fight) and take 3 Russian territories.

Of course, what would you have to give up to do it?

I think you wouldnt have to give up too much if you got lucky  :-). And getting Moscow by G3 is definitely unrealistic…

Ah hell, it’s right in the rulebook!  :oops:

Time for another eye checkup! :-D