Map Question

Yes.

welcome to the forums!

@mallimoosh:

1. Can you fly air units over enemy sea and land territories without AA during noncombat?

yes.  you can always fly air over whatever you want so long as the air units can land.  you could also fly air units over AA during noncombat too, but the AA gets to shoot at you depending on which version of the rules you are playing.

@mallimoosh:

2. If an attacker fails to take an occupied enemy territory and the attack is over, can he then go back into that same territory with other units during the same combat move?

no.  all combat moves are considered to take place at the same time, and, one you’ve started rolling, you can’t go back and make another combat move.

@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.

Yes, that is the way it works.

You can land Fighters or Bombers in any territory your alliance held at the start of your move.

@hyogoetophile:

@Krieghund:

Either way, those Canadian troops aren’t going anywhere by sea this turn.

Those Canadian troops (or troop if it’s just that arm) can still make it out. Just pick them/it up in sz9 instead.

You’re right.  Good catch!  I didn’t have access to the map when I wrote this.  What I should have said was that you can’t load them in sea zone 1.  You could move to sea zone 9, if it’s friendly, and pick them up from there.  However, this does limit your options for movement to Algeria, the United Kingdom and Panama (and the Eastern US, though you don’t need a transport to go there), and then only in combat movement.  If you’re trying to stop a UK counter-attack against an invasion of the United Kingdom, you need to either sink the transport or block sea zone 9.

Under LHTR, your only options for these troops are amphibiously assaulting Panama, Eastern USA, United Kingdom or Algeria.  Under the box rules, you would also be allowed to leave the troops on board the transport at sea.

Y’ like that? Here’s another I just printed for a customer…

I’m betting your going to all recognise this one…

http://www.eskimo.com/~jimlee/justStuff/mapJob/map1.jpg
The map from the other thread that people are are going on about…

http://www.eskimo.com/~jimlee/justStuff/mapJob/detail1.jpg

–and–

http://www.eskimo.com/~jimlee/justStuff/mapJob/detail2.jpg

The detail turned out pretty well considering this was from a bit image as opposed to a vector image.

36 x 75 inches.

So, how does one play on this map? How are the rules different and how is it initially setup? And, what are these convoy boxes? I’m completly out of the loop on this thing.

Is the guy that created this still around?

Wait a sec. I can’t make an image show up here?

-jim lee

Actually, this was teh thread that started teh whole thing that led to LHTR 1.3.  It was about using friendly ships that were already in an enemy occupied sea zone as fodder for your attack on those enemy ships.

Under the new LHTR that came out of this, the Allies can NOT use those US ships that are already in SZ59 as fodder for a UK attack on the Japan ships in SZ59.

This became the “Multinational Forces on Attack” thread.

@trihero:

Are you seroiusly considering building enough bombers to do ~24 IPC damage to Russia from both Germany/Japan?  8-)

Actually no.  Was trying to figure out if, for example, Germany could bomb Caucuses for 1-4, and Japan follow up also bombing it (since Japan will be able to reach Caucuses for SBR before it can reach Russia).

Did not want to waste either starting bomber if the max that could be done in Caucuses was 4 for the whole turn.