How about when attacking?

Thanks for the replies. That’s what the rules say, but it seems wrong because in theory everything in a round is supposed to be simultaneous.  We’ve developed some house rules over the years and this may be a new one. It just seems wrong that a plane can move extra spaces in the same round simply for landing on an allied carrier.

@Hobbes:

@hamiltmc:

My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.

You got extremely lucky. If the fighter from Egypt has survived G1 and joins the UK fleet, Japan still has 86% odds of winning if it attacks with 4 fighters, 1 carrier and 1 battleship. Otherwise Japanese odds are 98%.

I got lucky, that is for sure.  But he only brought the naval forces in zone 37, went for pearl harbor with the rest and kept any land based fighters deployed against China.

I fully expected to lose the battle when I first made the move, but wanted to weaken his navy for America’s kill Japan first strategy and to slow his conquest of Asia.  Still, truth be told, it was also about mixing things up and seeing what happened. I play this guy like twice a month and wanted to see a new dynamic.

I landed an American fighter on a British carrier in a recent game and the guy I was playing against raised the issue of what restrictions this places on the fighter’s movement next round.

So essentially the Brit carrier could move 2 spaces and he says my fighter should not then be able to still move 4 on the American turn, which makes sense but I did not see any clarification in the rules which said basically the fighter is treated as cargo.

Any thoughts?

I just started a new game tonight and attacked the Japanese transport successfully and landed the plane in China.  I then (for the first time ever) parked the Brit navy off the west coast of Australia, landed the AA gun and brought the sub and transport from underneath Australia up to bolster my navy.

My adversary took the bait and attacked with the Japanese naval force from SZ 37 and he actually lost the battle very badly, which completely sets up a great kill Japan First strategy for America.

We played 3 rounds before breaking for the night, but America is already parked off of Wake with a sizeable navy with a minor force occupying Solomons.  Next turn one of those forces will be able to seize Borneo and begin putting up a factory.

My opponent overreacted and rolled poorly so take this with a large grain of salt - but this whole scenario was made possible by redeployment of the Brit navy off Australia.  I’d say realistically he should have won the navy fight 6 or 7 times out of 10, but didnt.

You can hit the Japanese transport off Kwangtung.  You then have to choose between landing in China or back on your carrier, which ties your carrier to India where it is easy pickings for the Japs.  If you go this route, I would probably evacuate the British navy and land in China. I’ve done this a few times and I don’t recall how the games worked out, but it did actually slow Japan down quite a bit more than it would seem.  Any time you can buy Russia is worth considering.

IMO, West Russia should always be taken out.  That way you can put most (if not all) of your purchase down in Caucasus.  I often also attack Belarus, using the 2 fighters with infantry from Karelia.  You can reinforce Karelia from Archangel with maybe 2 infantry, which you will lose but are enough to force the Germans to commit resources to the attack. The German’s main weakness is that the various territories in Eastern Europe suck up infantry rapidly and it takes two turns to get new purchases east from Berlin. If Russia can protect its capital assets and keep trading infantry with Germany, the Allies have a good chance of victory.

I’ve always felt the sub perpetual sneak attack was unrealistic.  In real life, once they shot their first round of torpedoes the gig was up so it makes no sense to have “sneak attacks” each round of combat.  My buddies and I adopted a 1 round sneak house rule years ago and it’s an improvement in my opinion.

Hey everyone,

First post. I’ve lurked the forum a bit over the years, having played maybe 6 or so games a year with a few friends. This may be a basic rule, but I don’t have the rule book and last time I played this came up repeatedly.  So here goes:

When you are defending a naval battle and have a carrier and some planes that would otherwise crash if the carrier is destroyed as there is no friendly land within 1 space, can you choose to lose the carrier before you lose the plane(s)?

I seem to recall playing that way for years - believing that since you were on defense and not offense, it wasn’t a “suicide” move to lose the carrier first knowing the planes would crash no matter what if they survived the battle. I just saw it as the defender’s perogative and a way to make sure the attacker paid the largest price possible.

But my friends argued me down and we tend to play a few house rules anyway, so majority vote wins during disagreements.  I believe they have changed the rule and are wrong - but none of us seem to know where the hell the rule book got off to!

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.