Can a single US dest block a whole Jap fleet in sz 25?

And Russia has to be at war specifically with Japan. Also, USA has to be at war with someone. Any Axis power will do.

@genken said in Can Germany have more than 2 aircraft carriers in play:

I have searched for this on the forums and cannot find a reference to it. In the setup for Germany there are 2 pieces for aircraft carriers. I am axis and I started an Africa Korps movement but US entered the war in turn 1. Now I will need 2 carriers to guard the med in SZ 91 but I also want to place a carrier in SZ 113 to counter a possible Russian attack formulated by my cunning opponent. I can use a plastic chip in SZ 91. Is it permissible in the rules for Germany to have 3 carriers in play?

Why do you think that you need CV’s to protect the Med.?
I am curious, wouldn’t Bmbrs doing the same Job and give you more flexibility?
So now you spent 48 ipcs for three CV’s and 32 are lost compared to 48 = 4 Bmbrs plus your Ftr’s and the Allies player would have had to think about it sailing to Gibraltar…just my thoughts…

If you can convoy japan and take korea directly… that is always a good thing… but that rarely works out because of naval bases and airbases, usually it is best to attack the money islands (easier and more reliable) from ANZAC you can hit everything you need to. You start with two transports in the pacific, I recommend buying your naval pieces round 1 and maybe getting a transport round 2 (you start with infantry on the mainland so you don’t need to buy that until after 2 or 3 more boats).

Someone suggested an inf for Anz on New Guinea (in another thread). It doesn’t sound like much, but you can get the Anz NO (Dutch New Guinea) w/o losing a transport. There are probably better places for bid units, but I thought that one was interesting. It wasn’t a game changer like adding fleet, or units to unbalance (or as some would say balance) the Med etc….

Still fairly new to these forums. Before I begin, I should say our group plays alpha .2 rules, with the exception of no scramble, kamakazis, and we use original strategic bombing (no interceptors). Our group has decided that having the U.S. spend $100+ in just the Atlantic is too good. Also, it seems kind of “unhistorical” if you will. So we split it up giving some of the NOs to East and West United States. They act similarly to UK London and UK India, where war with one is war with the other, same attack move blah blah blah. I was curious if anyone else has tried this?

Oh and just a random afterthought, how do you guys play canals? This is how we play it:

No matter the amount of spaces before entering a canal, you must stop in the SZ before it. Then, on your next turn, the ships may move through, but only a single space. Then normal movement from there on out.

Another version we play is this. No matter the amount of spaces before entering a canal, you must stop in the SZ before it. Then, on your next turn, the ships may move through it at any length the ship could normally move.

We do this for two reasons. One is to keep the U.S. Pacific stuff, in the Pacific. The other is to slow ships moving up from Africa into the Med. Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Thanks!

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

More Allied trickery going on.

Yes, the damaged BB doesn’t lose any of its abilities except the ability to take 2 hits