Rule Question

Brilliant, logical and brief. Many thanks for the explanation.

I like two fleets (over the course of time). 
The first will be the UK fleet which eventually gets moved to sz 6 then to sz 5.  I usually have about 4-5 UK trns.

The second would be the US fleet which gets stationed at sz 12.  I only need 4-5 trns for the US.

The UK fleet/troops threaten all of Northern Europe, while the US fleet protects Afr for later Japanese landings as well as maintain a threat on SE (even if it is only a bluff).

As the game goes on the US can gradually add more trans and shift troops to Europe or perhaps even create a third fleet and move the one from Sz 12 to Sz 14.  Now you can really threaten SE or even Cauc if Russia needs help.

The UK’s job is to get a nice stack in Kar where you can pick off the Germans and/or help reinforce Moscow.

I like to box Germany in then turn the 3 Allies against Japan.

It can be extremely difficult and costly to actually take Berlin using a 1-2 type punch, so I just eliminate them as a threat to Moscow then make sure I can control Japan.  After that time is on the Allies side and it doesn’t matter to me if the game goes 10, 15, 25, or 30 rounds because each round that goes by I’m getting more units on the board.

I’ve used them a few times to bomb Germany into the stone age.  Especially on a KJF strategy.

England pumping out 1 or 2 bombers a round up to 3, America keeping 2 or 3 bombers in England and then blowing the heck outta both Germany facilities will severely limit his production.  Heck, 6 bombers vs Germany herself is still 20 damage, that’s 6.66 infantry they are not buying to prosecute the war.  And remember, those rounds you don’t loose a bomber, you don’t build one, you build fighters or transports or land units instead.

Meanwhile, America is more then capable of taking out Japan.  If Japan switches to building navy they do not have the man power to make significant gains against Russia/America/British stonewalling and thus America can easily out produce them, especially when America starts grabbing islands.

Under LHTR, in the description of AA guns, it does include a specific exception to AA guns ONLY moving in NCM when being carried on TRNs.

It is not 100% conclusive.  But it is more than enough to make me think that the AA gun does indeed offload in COMBAT movement (but of course cannot “attack” so it is ignored as a unit for the attacker).  If the Attacker wins the combat, they finish setting up the AA gun in NCM, and it protects the newly captured territory.  If the attacker is thrown back into the sea, the defender gains the AA gun.

At least, that is how I read it…

But it IS a simplification in terms of game mechanics.  And I recently LOST an argument where “game mechanics” won out over logic (see the topic Multinational Units on Attack).

Movement of each type occurs all at one time;  all combat movement occurs at once, all non-combat movement occurs after that, THEN the place units phase, then collecct income.  There is no non-combat movement of FIGs after unit placement, which the old rule REQUIRES.  That is the “simplification.”

LOL, that person definitaly played to much RISK!
'cause in RISK you can do the move you are talking about, but not in A&A…

you can see it on the left of the chart of every axis and allie:
first you have combat move
then you have conduct combat