Bridging question

Afraid not. However, if  you capture a Major Factory with more than 6 damage , it becomes (is downgraded  to) a Minor with just 6 damage.

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.

ChocolatePancake is perfectly right.

See Pacific 2nd Ed. rulebook, top of page 9:

@rulebook:

These two powers [UK and ANZAC]
also have an arrangement with the
Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured
by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch
territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move
units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any
time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan.
They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC
income) by moving land units into them. Additionally, the
United Kingdom and ANZAC consider attacks against any
Dutch territories to be acts of war against them directly.
Once a Dutch territory has been captured by Japan,
however, it may be captured and controlled by any power.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

Agree with techroll

Note that for #3, if the UK does not declare war on Japan the battleship could stay in the zone (would not be hostile), but if Japan has declared war on the US, there is almost no reason for the UK not to declare war on Japan…  So in 99% of cases I suppose the UK BB would need to move (if UK declared war on Japan since Japan DOW on USA)…

Thanks, thats what i thought. Although i had some daughts about Yugoslavia.

Unless you do G3 True neutral crush with attack on Turkey and Spain and sweden.

Plus Germany has a little extra incentive to make sure they keep it with the new NO.  Taking Norway and building an IC there won’t be the sure thing it’s always been up to now, but yes, if the US can pull it off it would be a major shift in power.