UK fighter attacking German transports?

@sachmatkris

German bombers can’t reach the US east coast in a typical anniversary edition game.

Where are your german bombers taking off from at the start of their turn? Where are they landing at the end if your turn? How far are you allowing them to move in one turn?

I suspect this may be a source of your issue. In anniversary a small fleet is absolutely needed to cover a transport which is in range of enemy air units, but it is typically manageable. However, if you are giving air units freer movement than they are due it could very quickly unbalance the game.

@mosuper:

As I understand it, the answer is no but would love the move official people to weigh in.

I suspect that the rule as I understand it is a bit cleaner:

If a germany falls falls (say to UK) then all territory belonging to Germany stays German. Suppose, all while Berlin is UK hands, US takes France ––> US gets France. If next, Japan takes France, then Japan gets to claim France. If next, Berlin is liberated, then France immediately goes back to Germany.

And, for factories, I think the rule is:

A country can only use an IC in a territory that they controlled at the beginning of their turn.

Some please correct me if I’m not getting the rule right.

All above is correct.

@mosuper:

What about when german units are available in a german country and Japanese units move in. Does Japan get to claim it or is it only when no German units are there?

In order for Japan to conquer (versus liberate) a German controlled territory after Berlin has fallen, the territory has to be taken by an allied power.  Just moving Japanese units into a Germany territory does nothing to the ownership of the territory, whether Berlin was lost or not.

@Lozmoid:

Even if those extra Fighters survive the battle and then have to crash into the sea?

Interesting stuff!  :-)

The thing is, you don’t know if those fighters will have to crash into the sea. They may end up on non-combat move without a valid landing spot but when you perform your combat moves there’s always a statistical change that the carrier will kill the 100 battleships (even though it should be about the same as you de-materializing while reading this message and materializing on the next room) thus the combat move satisfies the rule of a valid landing spot (regardless of how improbable it might be).

Combat moving 2 extra fighters to a battle goes against that same rule because there’s simply no possibility for those fighters to land during non-combat as they are moved (unless a carrier magically pops up out of nowhere into the middle of the battle board - odds for that happening should be the same as you teleporting yourself to another room) .

axis_roll is right, however i posted a topic on the reverse situation if you were interested to know that answer…

sala

P@nther, thanks for the quick reply….we are playing 1940 Global, so the long range aircraft only applies to initial movement.  The defending Aircraft from a sunk or damage aircraft carrier has a max of one movement regardless of long range tech.

@Omega:

The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)

To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.

If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game

Robert

kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land

worth a fighter?

@Krieghund:

@P@nther:

@Krieghund:

Since Jet Fighters increases fighters’ attack values to equal their defense values in normal combat, I’d say it would do the same in SBRs, allowing attacking fighters to roll on a 2. However, Larry will need to confirm that.

But this is still not confirmed by Larry as I think. Or is it?

Yes, it’s just been confirmed.  It will be in the next version of the FAQ (soon, I hope).

Great, thank you :-)

I wish I could give you a better answer than “soon”, but that’s all I’ve got.  :-(