Czech this scenario…

@krieghund yes, that is what I meant

Omg thank you so much!!! I will definitely donate, thank you! @Midnight_Reaper !

@justluthor
From the Revised FAQ:

"Q. The Nonaggression Treaty allows the USSR to place four units in the territory Japan attacks
first. What if the Japanese player attacks two or more red territories on the same turn?

A. In that case, the Soviet player chooses which of the territories being attacked gets the four infantry."

@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.

@slip-capone

We played a couple, then moved onto a week-long game of Global. I like “Revised” quite a bit, but my usual opponent is none-too-happy with the ability of transports to shoot back.
; )

Transports are no different than other units in this game as regards casualties. They don’t need to be taken last, and they are not automatically destroyed when alone. If you choose to sacrifice your warships to protect your transports, they can retreat if they survive.

@Imperious-Leader A narco topic but it still comes up in a Google Search. ;-)

Anyway, for words that are not Axis & Allies. I like the Elizeth font.

Right.  That is legal for a FRIENDLY landing, but not an amphibious assault.

And it is true that aircraft operating alone get to fire on enemy SUBs ONCE before the SUB can submerge (in revised anyway).

Personally, I think that the SUB should be able to do its opening fire step as a “submerge” against an air only attack.  At a bare minimum, allow the SUB to roll its “to hot” die, and if they hit, they submerge before the aircraft could attack them.

Historically, SUBs were killed by DSTs, not aircraft.  Aircraft inflicted SUB casualties were pretty low for most of the war for all sides.