IPC question

you can take them and increase your ipc total but you cant take their ipcs on hand because of no capital

Our group was wondering the same thing and came to the same conclusion.  In the new 1942 game I had a massive multinational allied fleet in SZ 12 including 3 russian subs of all things.  Facing it was a fleet in SZ 14 consisting of a Jap and german battleship/loaded carrier combo along with 6 u-boats.  It was in interesting situation, neither could attack the combined enemy with a divided attack force.  From SZ 14 the axis could hit Moscow  landing on an occupied eastern province with air power or SZ 17,18, 11, 9, 8 with the assumption the fighter(s) would land on a victorious carrier that single handedly destroyed a fleet of 4 CV, 8 FTR, 4 DD, 6 SS, 1 BB and  2 CC.  It meant using a fair bit of capital ship resources to escort straggling/special mission transport fleets or hoping in vain he would trade a ftr and cv for 1 or 2 transports.

I could have used the Yanks earlier to clear the enemy in SZ 14 but early I required a long shuck train starting on the US seaboard, Canada, algeria and across the top of Africa into persia to guarantee control of africa and to overwhelm the 2 german transport shuck operation into Africa.  I had enough fleet to defend, the Japs were trapped and would have put my america to africa shuck out of position.

Kreighund, why didnt ANZAC start with an AA gun?
Seems bazzare to me that that power doesnt get one.

@Lozmoid:

I’m not 100% sure about how Kamikaze attacks prevent shore bombardment during amphibious assaults. Can anyone please explain with perhaps an example? The manual merely states:

“A Kamiaze attack prevents a bombardment supporting an amphibious assault.”

This is extremely brief and, I believe, needs further clarification. I know that Japan may use her full quota of up to 6 Kamikaze attacks (even all against the same enemy surface warship) in the one battle, if she desires. Is it true that ONE Kamikaze attack prevents ALL Battleships and Crusiers from bombarding, or is it done on a 1 for 1 basis? By that I mean does each single Kamikaze only prevent 1 ship from bombarding? Say there are 3 bombarding ships and Japan can make 2 kamikaze strikes - are 2 of the bombardments cancelled whilst the 3rd may go ahead?

Also, I saw this question & answer come up at one point in the FAQ thread:

Q. Does a single Kamikaze attack stop shore bombardment, or must there be at least one conventional unit involved (surface warship or scrambled plane)?
A. A kamikaze alone will prevent shore bombardment.

Does the answer here relate to my paragraph above, in that one kamikaze prevents ALL shore bombardment? I would really appreciate a clarification on how this all works, thank you.

Either ALL bombardment occurs (no naval battle) or NO bombardment occurs.  “A” bombardment does not refer to a single ship, but the entire group of ships firing their single round.

A single Kamikaze plane causes a naval battle in that seazone.  A naval battle eliminates the possibility of shore bombardment from that seazone.  period.

Thanks for answering both of you

Well it is like, his job, right?

@Butcher:

In the rulebook, it says that China is allowed to attack Japanese forces in and occupy Burma and Kwangtung. Does this also mean that they can non-combat move infantry and/or the Flying Tigers into either territory? Thanks.

Yes.

@Frontovik:

but not sure you can place new units in those territories

You can mobilize new Chinese units in any territory that China controls.  China can only control Burma or Kwangtung if it captures them from Japan while India is held by Japan.

Does that mean it’s thinkable (I know it’s not logical, smart, wise and/or strategic at all) that UK & ANZAC are not going to war during the hole game?? When USA attacks, Japan can retaliate without provoking UK & ANZAC . Correct?