OK, that makes a lot more sense now. One other thing I do see is someone abusing this rule to get an extra move for some of their units–if I owned a territory that was inaccessible from the territory my army was in, but my enemy owned a territory (with a factory in it) that bordered both of my territories, I could launch a strategic assault against my enemy’s factory and then “retreat” my forces into the inaccessible territory.

For example, a German army could launch a strategic assault against Karelia S.S.R with the sole objective of moving an army from the Baltic States to Finland, or launch a strategic assault from the Eastern Ukraine into Russia, and then “retreat” their forces into the Urals or Novosibirsk once the first round of combat was done (assuming the Urals or Novosibirsk were controlled by an axis power). In each instance, the assaulting nation could attack with a force much too small to actually take the territory, yet still get the advantage of moving through the territory as though they had actually conquered it.

I like the idea of strategic assaults, but if I was going to play a game with them I would require all assaulting land units to retreat back into the territory they had originated in once the assault was over.

I was thinking about ways to prevent unrealistically huge stacks of infantry being built up in a single territory, and I have thought up a way that is somewhat similar to Strategic bombing.

The strategic assault sounds really cool, but how would it prevent unrealistically huge stacks of infantry being built up in a defending territory? If one round of normal combat occurs during the strategic assault, it plays to the defender’s advantage to have as many defending units as he can–including “fodder units” like infantry.

Just because the attacker isn’t trying to take the defender’s territory doesn’t mean the defender doesn’t still want to kill as many attacking units as he can.

Speaking of the US, once the US starts getting its bonus income for being at war, it’s nearly impossible for Japan to fend off the assault (assuming US dedicates all of its IPCs to the Pacific theater). Would it be a good idea for Japan to do a quick, preemptive strike on the US homeland, Pearl Harbor style?

I’m thinking no, but if it’s worked for you I’d like to hear how you did it…

Well “low luck” would imply rounding down, I suppose… thanks for the explanation. It sounds useful for play-testing.

If the attacker retreats and the fighters don’t have enough movement left to reach safety, they will be lost.

Really? My friends and I have always played where the aircraft must have a safe landing zone in range before engaging in combat. This way, the only way you can lose your planes due to not having a landing zone is if the carrier is destroyed during the combat phase.

Sid Vicious: Double-blind is when you use two boards and a moderator. Allies play on one board, Axis plays on another board. Each team is in a separate room so they can’t see each other’s boards; only the moderator can see both boards. Each team also starts with one “recon plane” unit; the recon plane has no attack, but reveals whatever is in a territory that it flies over. The moderator goes back and forth between the boards, giving each team the results of their recon and also telling them when they have to engage in battle. For example, if Germany moves into a Russian-occupied territory and the two nations are at war, the moderator announces that each side must engage in combat. The two nations then move their armies to the battleboard (the armies are revealed) and combat commences.

It’s more realistic this way, because we don’t always know where the enemy’s armies are. Otherwise, we play with alpha +2 rules.

Cow: I’d also appreciate it if you explained what “low luck rules” are, I’ve never heard of them.

You had a successful Sealion and kicked the British out of the Med? AND Italy helped Japan in the Pacific? That sounds like the definition of a one-in-a-million chance, and also incredibly awesome. But I suppose no scramble rules would have made it easier.

I’ve been outlining my Japan taking India plan, next time I play I’ll try it out and if it works well I’ll post it.

I have to ask then, why is India just sitting there? If they aren’t being attacked, they should be on the offensive pushing into China.

India does push into China, they build almost exclusively infantry and artillery, which means there’s a steady stream of them going from India, through Burma and into the Burma Road. Sort of like the German tank blitz towards Russia in the Anniversary Edition. It’s very difficult to take care of later in the game, which is why I’m considering going for India early the next time I play as Japan.

And yes, we are playing double-blind. Last time I played my destroyer screen was incomplete and ANZAC ended up taking Japan.

It was horrible. I’d already taken ANZAC, though, so we were even.

When my friends and I play India always turtles on the Burma Road and in their capitol, the only time to break through is in the beginning before they’ve amassed a huge stack of infantry. That’s why I suggested turn three–one turn to consolidate the navy and build transports around Japan, another turn to move three spaces towards India, and entering their sea zone on turn three. After the third turn war is declared automatically, so hitting one of the Allies with a huge attack on turn three is about the best thing to do–they haven’t had a lot of time to build up and it doesn’t bring the US in any sooner than it would otherwise.

Plus, going for India will prevent them from liberating China later, which has always proven a problem for me. Mid-game, the US is pressuring Japan on the sea, and India is coming up through the Burma Road with infantry and artillery. The way I see it, it’s better to get one out of the way quickly so I only have to deal with one of them later.

The problem is, this strategy leaves Japan wide open for about a turn. If the American navy is anywhere near Japan in that time, I’m screwed.

In Anniversary Edition the aircraft carriers attack on a one and defend on a two or less. The two fighters will attack on a three or less. You may attack with the planes and the carrier all at once, but the carrier cannot take hits like a battleship.

To answer you second question, the planes can also take off from the carrier, move to attack, and then noncombat to a different sea zone to land on the carrier. However, if you want to land them in the same sea zone the battle takes place in, you MUST have the carrier participate in combat as well.