Is SZ11 adjacent to any coast?

@barnee Thank you very much Barnee. This is the first time this situation has come up, so we wanted to do it right.

@rforelli
From the “Air Base”-unit characteristics, Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 25:

Increased Air Unit Range: When taking off from a friendly territory that has an operative air base, air units gain 1 additional point of movement range. At that point fighters and tactical bombers can move 5 spaces, and strategic bombers can move 7spaces. Note: Air units on carriers in a sea zone adjacent to a territory containing an air base don’t benefit from this additional movement range.

@knp7765:

Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).

Still, doesn’t this seem logical to you guys? That an occupation force would call for air cover from a carrier or air base if counter-attacked?

Here is the HR I can probably use:
An adjacent operational Air Base provides up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
Each carrier can provide 1 plane in an adjacent land territory (Fg or TcB).
An adjacent territory can provide 1 plane (Fg or TcB).

In any situation, keep this limitation:
it is up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB) max which can be scrambled into an adjacent territory under attack.

In addition:
any territory under attack can allow an aerial retreat for 1 single plane (Fg, TcB or StB) or up to 3 planes (Fg, TcB or StB) if there is an operational AB, the range is only 1 territory or SZ move.

Does anyone see some specific drawback to this limited two ways: inward air-support/ outward air retreat?

If the rule is kept within the same limit as the scramble rule in a SZ, players are already taking account of this special air reinforcement, it shouldn’t be difficult to watch it even if it is applied on land territories. What do you think?

I agree with the sentiment that the UK and US should be able to relocate capitals. In fact, while it doesn’t have a VC, Central United States could also qualify as one since it has Chicago. It could always be added as a symbolic VC, since it won’t tilt the balance of a game unless Germany pulls off a once in a blue moon American invasion.

LOL The Great Lake Invasion…

N. America is all messed up, have you tried putting them together? It makes Canada next to mexico!

Europe is small, BUT ITS A AWESOME GAME!!!

Here are some of my early posts on a matter close to this: (since you started out asking if anyone has done this)
I have not updated plans for Alpha 2 my focus has been elsewhere.

Below was for OOB I believe not Alpha 2.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20342.msg685203#msg685203

here is a link for OOB: operation Penta-gone.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20342.msg685806#msg685806

This is a link to a plan that got the entire Japanese air force OOB to the Atlantic by turn 5.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20342.msg685806#msg685806

(by the way, I coined the term Operation Hollywood for revised 2004 back in the day)
here is a link talking about the origin of the name: Credited by Iron-Chef post: 08-09-2004, 05:41 PM
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20342.msg685806#msg685806

No. Krieg has answered this already