How does everyone feel about the new transport rules?

Thank you.

@AaronConnor
From the Anniversary rulebook, page 31:
“A transport can load and offload units without moving from the friendly sea zone it is in (this is known as “bridging”). Each such transport is still limited to its cargo capacity. It can offload in only one territory, and once it offloads, it cannot move, load, or offload again that turn”.

So it can bridge exactly one time per turn, either during Combat Move Phase (into a hostile territory) or during Noncombat Move Phase (into a friendly territory).

Splitting this Colonial Outpost idea out into it’s own thread.

@Omega:

The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)

To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.

If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game

Robert

kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land

worth a fighter?

:-)

tcnance - This thread may help you also; it has a list of rule changes that Krieghund made.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12932.0

I was just looking over the new AA50 board image and it occured to me how arbitrary the geography is in this game.

Why is the Belgian Congo in this game at all?

Spain is off limits, even though certainly in the realm of possible history/gameplay Spain could have been a major player or battlefield of WWII; a lot more of a possibility than French Eq Africa or the Belgian Congo which are indeed in play.

Certainly Turkey could have been a significant factor in this alternative universe of a game we call Axis & Allies than ever could have would been French West Africa or Rhodesia.

Yet there they are: Belgian Congo, French West Africa, Rhodesia all open for invasion. Spain and Turkey and others are closed off.

This is so ahistorical, we disagree about countless other nuances and rules about being historically deficient. Yet without Spain and Turkey, we are are not even accorded the ability to play out WWII in ways which could have indeed happened a lot more probable than the invasion of the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia by the Nazi war machine.

Why of all the possibilities of the Axis and Allies timeline/universe are these 2 of the more likely ones that could have happend are indeed shut down?

I found that sending men in the baltic sea in AAE was a faster way to send troops out to the front which it did also i some how took leningrad on 1st turn and he was pissed because men in russia and belorussia had a choice and they had to retreat and keep a few men there. So making a bit of a navy for germany can be profitable if the russian rolls are “5’s”