@vowly said in Rule Entry for flying over neutrals:
Does this count for non combat moves of only combat moves?
Logic dictates that “Fly over” applies to combat and non-combat movement.
@trig The thing is, how many people have had guns in the '40s
@david-06 A lot. Think how many there are now, and then add a few. Hunting was more popular then I believe, and a gun was still a household item.
And it isn’t necessarily that everyone has one, but that you don’t have a good way to eliminate those who own one. Anyone could have a gun or 5, and that chance that there are guns make an invade very nervous to go walking down a street with windows.
@trig Good point
@trig the US already has a rule about placing land units in home country when attacked. not necessary at all.
@theveteran Yes, but that rule only comes into effect after the invasion. My rule allows for the large US coastline to defended without over taxing the small US army. It is far to easy to sneak attack and snipe one open land zone on the US, thus denying the a VP permentanlty.
@trig it’s easy to guard the US coast from Japan. Again, your rule is unnecessary.
@theveteran What about Italy or Germany?
Or a determined Japan with their surprise strike?
@trig never ever seen Italy or Germany land on US home country once . Surprise strike? Then the Japanese deserve to land. Surprise strike is also limited to one battle which should be used against the US navy , not for a landing party .
@theveteran Yes, hitting the fleet then bashing in one territory with little defense. That is what happens. The US never has enough to defend its whole coast.
@trig Japanese aircraft and bombardments will be used in the naval battle, Japan should
Not have both a large fleet AND a large landing force. They don’t have enough income to have both in time to hit the US with their surprise strike. This will only happen if Japan has put its complete focus on the US from the start of the game. No house rule is needed to combat a 💯 US focus by Japan.