Rules clarification

Correct.

You cannot send land units into a neutral territory, and you cannot even fly air units over neutral territories.

The new rules along with the Sahara Neutral territory makes the battle for Africa much more strategy driven.

that all depends on the ger 1 purchase and the jap 1 move, you cant go into revised with a set in stone game plan……you have to adapt more on the fly,  for example if g1 buys an ac and tranny places them in the baltic sea zone then the uk is very vulnerable to attack for the first 3 rounds or so, when this happens the us should focus on reinforcing the uk for the  first couple of rounds

another example is if japan fails to execute a pearl harbor attack on j1 then the us has a pretty formidable fleet to threaten the south pacific islands that are high in ipcs, ive managed to execute both of these attacks in our current tourney…was even fortunate to have a usa ipc in the east indies in one game…i also managed to take over uk in g2 once when my opponent failed to reinforce the uk  on usa1, he moved his 2 trannies to algeria and unloaded his forces there…but back to the origional question, for me yes the us should focus on landing in africa and starting a big infantry train just like you suggested…oh and one other thing i tried with us was an ic build in sinkaing when the japs took china with only a couple of inf remaining, reinforced there with russian troops and that ic held out  for 7 rounds…long enough to take out germany and hassle the japs with armor and fig placement in sink

and i also am getting my ass kicked by mojo right now in the battle for the bronze, my jap forces are decimated his russian forces are able to concentrate solely on germany and the us has a huge force in the pacific

i guess what im saying is aar doesnt always boil down to just russia and germany…it still usually does but not always

The sahara effectively splits africa creating a choke point in egypt.  Since the US goes last there’s no predicting what the board will look like.  On US1 they can land a decent army (2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk) in algeria (the only african coast within range) but it exposes their naval forces (1 des, 2 trn) to german AF.  If those forces are sunk then you have to spend money on infrastructure instead of combat forces, if you don’t land on US1 that gives germany another round to consolidate gains in africa, and it will be US4 before they can mount an attack on Egypt.  The sahara is one of my favorite changes AAR made to the classic game.

Exactly jsp,

And it keeps the Brits out, too. I ALWAYS try to position my entire German airforce within striking range of sz 12 as well as pulling the baltic fleet to sz 7. The possibility of sinking 4 allied TP’s (2 U.K., 2 U.S.) on G2 is usually enough to discourage an allied landing in Africa on the first turn.

Jennifer,

You might want to be careful about pushing a U.S. unit train through North Africa. It is possible for the U.S. to get moving quickly into Africa with the E. Can to Algeria move. And the U.S. does have enough funds to eventually max out the East U.S. 12 unit production max (10 inf 2 arm is 40 with U.S. up Alg,Lib down China,Sink) with 6 TP’s. But even if you can get away with landing on U.S.1, your first infantry won’t reach Persia until U.S. 5. Five turns of allowing Germany and Japan to hammer away at Russia before the U.S. gets solidly involved is a long time and with only the Brits for support it’s a risky road to take. You could get by with building more armor to get some guys to the front faster, but it means less units are hitting the beach every turn, so it’s a tradeoff.

But, this is purely speculation on my part. I haven’t given it much thought. If you can get it to work, by all means, go for it. I’d like to see it in action so I could expand my U.S. bag of tricks.

It makes Japan tweek their strat to do the North Africa march.  Persia becomes a choke point for southern prong Japan forces.

In my current game, the result of the North Africa march is that Moscow fell before Caucuses.

Hey Jennifer,

Yes to your first 3 questions.
when transports attack at 0 and defend at 1, they make good fodder :) but i like my transports.

allowing Aircraft to go on newly built Aircraft carriers or existing ones in the same seazone is sometihng i really enjoy a lot in the new game.

you can actually move fighters in your non-combat move phase to an industrial complex either on the West coast or Easter Coast of the states for example and then put those fighters on a newly built aircraft carrier that turn.

For your last question i’m at work so i’m not 100% sure, but from what i understand i believe its a no, i don’t think any allied country can gain any money from any allied territory even if there capital is controlled by the enemy

The answer to your last question is definitely “NO”. I had some problems accepting how that works in an actual game and petitioned for LH himself to make a change in the LHTR ruleset. For more info on my view on the matter you can read a thread between Octo and myself and at LH’s site, here: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=836&sid=40484d3a699be4bcacab66bff3e20f27

I don’t think new fighters can go on old carriers. Old FTRs can go on new carriers and new fighters can go on new carriers. I’m a bit unsure about the new FTRs and Old ACs though. Are you sure on that?

Either way getting to put FTRs onto new carriers immediately is very cool. It is nice not to be dropping also nice change 16 IPCs undefended into the ocean.

Newly built fighter can be placed on existing carriers.

Page 15 Phase 6: paragraph 6 (LHTR v1.3):

Place sea units only in sea zones adjacent to territories containing eligible industrial complexes. New sea units can enter play even in a hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the conduct combat phase is over. Newly built fighters can be placed into territories containing an industrial complex controlled by your power from the start of your turn, or they may be placed on an aircraft carrier owned by your power in a seazone adjacent to a territory with such an industrial complex. The aircraft carrier may be an existing one or it may be a newly built carrier. You may not place a new fighter on a carrier owned by a friendly power. Place new industrial complexes in any territory that you have controlled since the start of your turn and that has an income value of at least 1. You can never have more than one industrial complex per territory.

@Jennifer:

Can you take possession of allied territories you “liberated” provided their capital is occupied by the enemy?  (AKA, Moscow is in German hands, can USA take possession of Yakut and collect its income until Moscow is liberated?)

I think my previous “NO” to this question followed a link should be given a short version explanation…  :-)

Let’s assume Moscow has fallen… Then territories that are russian controlled remain so even if allied troops enter. But if Karelia(Russian owned) is controlled by Germany and is then liberated by UK it would be controlled by UK as the “liberator”(and you can claim income from it, build there etc.) If Moscow is liberated it will return to Russia.

I found that a little strange, as one particularly strange situation can occur. Russia pushes for Berlin(common tactic) while Japan rushes for Moscow. Let’s assume the capitals fall about simultaneously. If Russia had captured the German territories in between and her own territories are not taken by either Japan or Germany it means Russia will “hold up” lots of income for all of these countries as the allies can not take control of them. In fact they have an incentive to retreat from these territories and let Japan conquer them so that they in return might move back in and “liberate”…

That’s the short version. If you want more, follow the link I gave earlier.  :-)

I read the post by LH, and as I understand an allied power could claim the IPC of a “liberated” country if the Owning countries captial is occupied and the territory in question was enemy occupied/controlled when liberated:

Example:

Moscow has fallen to the axis, allied troops move/land in Karelliea and take possesion.

Then:
If Karellia was under Russian control (occupied or not) the allies could not claim the IPC’s
If Karellia was under Axis control (occupied or not) the allies could claim the IPC’s

Is this the general consensus?

Yep.

Correct.

The rule is that you CAN claim the territory of a fallen ally IF you take that territory from the enemy.

You can NOT claim it if it is still controlled by the fallen ally.

And if the allied capital is liberated, all of their territory controled by an ally returns to the original nation immediately.