@OneShot187:

That means if I had a fighter that was landed at the end of my non combat phase in my country with the IC I can move that fighter to the newly built seazone containing the CV? Cou’dn’t that potentially have moved the fighter 5 spaces? (2 out on combat and 2 back on noncombat, then place new CV and move the fighter to the CV).

Once you end your noncombat move landing a fighter on a territory, it stays there regardless of whether you purchased a CV.

See next question regarding purchasing a CV.

@OneShot187:

Also, I thought I remember reading a gameplay where Germany built a CV on G1 and a fighter was going to land on it althought it went 3 moves on its combat to Karelia and 1 move on its noncombat to Sz5 and was said to land on newly built carrier.

Purchasing a CV allows a sea zone landing opportunity for existing fighters or purchased fighters.  The sea zone must be adjacent to an IC.

The existing fighters must be able to hover in that sea zone (adjenct to the IC) with no more than 4 total moves (both combat and noncombat movement), knowing that the CV purchased will be placed in that sea zone during mobilize units.

@OneShot187:

So my ? really is, can a fighter end its non combat move in a seazone if you have purchased a CV and plan to place it in that seazone?  To me that doesn’t seem right because you have to finish all noncombat moves before you place new units.

Yes, you are correct, it can end it’s noncombat move in a sea zone, knowing that a purchased CV will be placed there during mobilize units.

@OneShot187:

Or is this a difference in the OOB rules and LHTR?

I know there are differences in OOB and LHTR, however, I’m not sure on this one.

@Craig:

@ncscswitch:

One thing about Craig…

When it comes to the rules, I have NEVER known him to be wrong.

While I try real hard to get it right, that doesn’t mean I’m not wrong from time to time. :-D

Plus, I have people like Blackwatch to bounce things off if it is really convoluted. :-o

Craig

I thought you were Blackwatch. :evil:

Almost never, except under rare circumstances, should UK ever build an IC in Eastern Canada.

However, USA offers flexibility.

It just says allies, not UK, right?

Just so you know, French Resistance can actually be placed during US/USSR if US/USSR takes Western Europe.

I would say no to eastern europe/west russia gambit.

No reason to go after eastern europe on russia 1.  If you want to take out a fighter, take it out in ukraine.

Leaving a fighter to defend vs. inf or multiple inf plus fighter is no good for russia.  Russia can take advantage of position more than taking out eastern europe.

Yes, Norway should be taken as soon as strategically possible.  No one should ever wait if norway is open for the taking.

However, which country takes it depends on what the Allied strategy is.

Building an IC in USA depends on a few things though.  Basically, if there is no aa available, then maybe not a good idea.  If Germany has secured Leningrad, not a good idea.

However, if US is going KGF, and the option is available, it’s not a bad investment.

Going after the US with Japan is a major gamble.  If anything, it should be a diversion, where you take advantage of your BBs (hopefully they hit on bombardment).

However, I do believe the axis strength would be going after Africa instead of the US.

Troops in Africa are much more hard to come by that troops in North America.

if russia can take it, I say let em.

however, if USA can take it, I prefer USA.

Russian fighter on R1/R2 will save ground units in the long run.  However, you had better have a good idea about how your russian stack sits.  If you lost a few extra in West Russia or Ukraine, then wait and see how you sit on R2.