Aircraft carrier question

@hengst

Yes, that plan is the cleverest cheat of the game. My opponents are too smart for that though.

That sounds like the way i understand the rules. Moving to an adjacent sea zone then moving to a land territory in that sea zone is 2 moves. Therefore not allowed.

great answer GHG.

One nuance that is sometimes lost is that 1 carrier may not be able to potentially support 2 different planes, flying off in opposite directions.

If both planes do not have an alternate landing site,
and both would rely on the same carrier to recover them,
the fact that 1 plane or the other (or both) might die
doesn’t permit you to rely on that carrier,
if it would have to move to recover one of the planes in such a way that it could not then recover both.

If the carrier could stay where it is, or move and still recover both planes within 4 moves, the move is legal.  If 1 plane dies, you must noncom move the carrier (if necessary)  to receive the other.    If both planes die, you can noncom move wherever you like.

The thing you cannot do is combat move 2 planes that both rely on the same carrier in such a way that the carrier could not possibly recover both.  What actually occurs during combat doesn’t matter;  the move must be legal as of the finalization of combat moves.

It could have been worded better IMO.

Hi Pherman. Like The Methuselah said, nothing is official.  That said, not many (no one) here would allow an Anzac Inf on Egypt. The accepted rule is that the territory needs to be owned by the nation placing the bid unit. Ultimately, is between the players to decide.

Alpha 3 is an evolution of what originally started as a setup change to address imbalances in the Pac1940 game.

The original setup change addressed Pac 40 only, and was called Alpha, and was meant to be used in Pac alone as well as Global.  Imbalances noted in Global began to influence the alpha revisions, going from Alpha, Alpha +, Alpha + 2, etc.  As these changes were made to address global, there was still a desire to use these modifications for the theater specific games, but this was not a playtesting priority (most people has transitioned to Global only as their primary game - alpha began before Europe 1940 was released).  As the theater games became less of a playtesting priority, the national objectives were revised, and this is probably the primary driver of theater imbalances at this point (particularly US objectives in the pacific theater & Russian objectives in Europe theater).

I would recommend using the Alpha 3 setup and rule changes.  I would recommend using OOB national objectives until official objectives that apply to the theater games are released.  Alternatively, use national objectives from Alpha 3 for all countries but US (use OOB for those) in theater specific games.

The one hanging option that’s been noted many times for the Europe theater is that the Siberian reinforcements should be abandoned and instead Russia ALWAYS collects 9 additional IPCs each turn that represent the eastern provinces not shown in the Europe theater.

Anyone?

@cressman8064:

@Get:

can they build a Minor IC then upgrade it to a Major IC, since the rules do not state anything about upgrading it to a Major IC.

Upgrading a minor to major on foreign soil still counts as building a major, so with the new rules Korea is the only location Japan can build a major anywhere in the world.

Or Japan, assuming it falls and is retaken.