Rule question

@Corbeau:

@timerover51:

Your shore bombardment idea has been picked up in the Anniversary Edition rules, evidently.

Ya, i saw that, that’s great news :)
I can only wish i was the one to propose it to the game designer but it really is a coincidence. That was a house rule we used way back then. Still great to see he thought of it too. :)

I like the also th idea of BB acting as artillery support. Good thinking there too. I would not allow it for planes too, i find them already too flexible as a unit acting both in land and sea. I’d rather have them seperated in 2 classes, Land based fighters and CV based fighters. They already have the different molds for some nations, german stuka and Bf-109 for exemple. anyways, that’s another discussion.

For the BB acting like an AA, that’s exactly what i meant. Would give a reason to have one in a fleet.

You need to remember that roughly 2/3 of a carrier’s aircraft were attack planes, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, that would be used in support of ground troops.  This is the basis for the flexibility in fighters in A&A.  If you had a dedicated attack plane, like the Stuka, you could reduce the fighter’s role by a little bit, but by the end of the war, the US Navy’s Corsair fighter was carrying a bombload heavier than that of the Stuka, and delivering it with comparable accuracy.

As for BB getting an AA roll, that makes a fair amount of sense, and is pretty historically accurate.  Quite simply, BBs normally acted as a magnet for air attacks, even if a carrier was around.  The US South Dakato shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while escorting the carrier US Enterprise at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, while Adm. Raymond Spruance deployed his battleline in advance of his carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 to deliberately absorb Japanese carrier plane attacks.  However, the US did have the best naval AA fire control systems of the entire war, so what holds true for the US does not hold true for everyone else.  The Bismarck had major problems with defending against a limited number of British Swordfish, while the Italian BBs had similar problems.  The British were so-so, and the Japanese were close to hopeless until late in the war.  You could make it a National Advantage for the US, but I suspect that would not be acceptable to a majority of Axis players.  Making it universal is a bit of a stretch.  It would be up to you.

nope

You may defend together but never attack since the UK ships are not “placed on the battleboard” they can take no hits.

I agree, there’s not a lot of times you’d want to do that.  But I could see it in rare circumstances.  Usually transports, even unloaded ones (who leaves loaded transports out where they can be shot at?)

More fun is when someone forgets in AAR a submarine does not block enemy submarines and you sail under, sink his three aircraft carriers, submerge with your surviving submarines and watch his 6 fighters go sploosh in the Pacific Ocean.  It was a beautiful day.  He could have recovered easily, but the moral hit alone caused him to concede the game.  The best part is, submarines can’t shoot aircraft, so he HAD to take the carriers as casualties!

How often does that occur?  Like almost never!  Same with having a need to send fighters out to kill something and feinting at enemy ships to make the move “legal” even if you have no intention of ever recovering those fighters!

1.  No, this includes land, air, and sea units placed in any adjacent seazones.

2. No, territories can only be claimed by land units.

3. It has to be in an IC.

4. Only for anti-aircraft.  Submarines opening fire is for their attack value (2 or 3 with super subs technology), and the battleships bombardment hits on a 4.

5. Yes, the bomber can land in brazil, as it is friendly territory.  The 3 IPCs from Brazil are already included in the USA’s production, so theres no need to add them in.

Once again, only land units can capture territory.

if it were free for all trading may work. you would need countries to have difernt units. like and japanese fighter defending on 5 and russian fighters on a 3. then russia could be like i’ll buy a japaese fighter for m japanfor 10 ipcs. japan would (if it were to trade) buy on figther and  put it on a transport or in a bomber. the transport/bomber would have to drop the fghter off somewhere in russia.

Exactly the only option in your situation would be to let the territory be taken by Germany and then land there with US boys again.

Concur with Sankt here  (who is becoming a very high grade “go to” person for answers on LHTR)

Damn, we can;t even agree on the rules here…