Just some rule clarifications and questions

@andrewaagamer Thanks!

Yes, sure.  Its just usually not a good idea (since tacs are poor defenders and are usually being lost without replacement, they need another source of fighters to shine).

Little more clarification on #4–when you liberate a capital (lets use Paris), all of the territory that the allies recaptured from the Axis immediately become French again, blowing off the other Allied markers and all going “blue” except for land that the Axis was holding.  So if we say that the Axis owned Southern France and Syria upon liberation, France’s new income at the end of that turn would be 15, but there would be no building or placement of units until the next round (if they live that long).

As you probably read, the Allies can only “liberate” other Allied land if it has been taken by the Axis first.  The only exception to this is the Dutch territory, and if you read the rules carefully, only ANZAC and UK can activate these, USA cannot.  However, in another twist, all Allied planes can land on these whether they are activated or not.

In practice what this means is that taking Moscow or Paris back just tosses a ton of money back into Axis hands, while taking away the income from USA and UK (primarily) that they fought so hard to liberate.  This creates a problem, because the Allies will actively avoid liberating capitals and handing so much cash to the Axis since in most cases, the Axis can easily recapture the key capital zones and control of it would just trade back and forth.

As a result, one sort of universally accepted house rule is to destroy the money rather than give it to the capturing player, after the first capture.

The Allies rarely benefit from capturing a capital, because the Italy economy is usually decimated before the Allies invade, and if you were able to capture Berlin or Tokyo, that’s usually endgame for the Axis if they don’t want to fight on.

Agree with GHG, the limitation there is because you spend so many resources and so much time building up as the USA, it just wouldn’t seem fair that you could just pick off his invasion force, which in some situations, the USA player can not replace for 2 turns or possibly, ever.      Of course, its still pretty much impossible to invade japan proper unless you are demolishing him economically and even then, it takes quite a bit of time to get the forces over there–however, japan is not the only place he can kami --how is it fair to let him kami a transport that’s coming into iwo jima to set up a US strongpoint there?

The true limitation of the kamikaze is that there are really only 4 units that can be hit by it; dd ca cv bb    (no subs, transports, or planes, so its a long list), and 2 of those things aren’t sunk by just 1 hit.

Carriers are the most vulnerable, but they don’t even have to come along, they can wait in the wings and all they bring to the battle is soak hits.

Plenty of times when the allies attack SZ 6 they do it with like 2-3 naval units and 10+ planes, so the kami isn’t effective alone in stopping him.

The reason to keep it around in Japan’s pocket is that it ruins his support shots, iirc

Its a fun flavorful rule but its just piling on because Japan doesn’t really need it in order to survive or thrive, and usually when you try to depend on it it fails miserably in a gigantic blaze of glory.  I say try n dump it (we do in G42 G41 at times)!

Also, assuming the cruiser initiates combat and the defending subs remain, don’t forget that the defending subs get to shoot first even though they are defending. That means the cruiser might not even get to shoot at all…

Marsh

That’s what I thought.

damn depending on tech is rough. 6 rolls is only like 80% or something to get a 6 and then you got to get the tech you want. ><

Thanks DefinitiveS.  Somehow I totally missed the part in parentheses.  I just looked again and it jumped right out at me.  DUH!

You need a poll to vote guys, cmon get it together.