Question Regarding Multiple Attacks

UK cannot land there because they did not own it at the beginning of their turn. US comes after them in the order.
You found the relevant rule and quoted it.

I have seen a few Allied players skip the Flying Tiger attack. It is not a move I agree with. I will sacrifice Japanese planes I CAN REPLACE to take out that plane that can not be. It gives China a chance at offensive attacks and some defense.

I see no reason for Japan not to attack China. While killing all the Chinese troops in round 1 of a '41 game can be a bit of a stretch, the flying Tigers and some other territories should be attacked. While Japan may not want to spend the effort to totally eliminate China it is worthwhile to reduce them to just Chinghai. This way they can not produce any troops and are no longer relevant.

From the Allied side it is worth Russia’s troubles to send some forces to China to delay the Japanese. If China can be held to 2 or 3 territories they will produce free infantry and increase the amount of forces Japan has to commit for an advance through the central Asian front. In most games Russia will eventually have to retreat it’s forces as the Japanese become too numerous to hold out over China and its infantry, but again the whole idea was to delay Japan anyway. As far as other Allied liberations occurring these are very rare. Normally this will be done by the US and it will also normally be after all the high value UK territories and the Philippines have been liberated.

I would say just come to grips with the reality that China is a good idea badly implemented in AA50.

@Omega:

The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)

To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.

If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game

Robert

kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land

worth a fighter?

@Sgt.:

But, can you move a fighter in non-combat to a territory which borders a seazone with a newly built carrier and have it land on said carrier? I’m guessing not.

You’re guessing correctly.  The fighter must end its movement in the sea zone in order to land on the carrier.

So….

Yes… the Submarine gets to shoot at my transport during combat (and i should not have brought the transport along)
No… I may not land my troops after the surface warships are cleared, simply because there was a battle in the first place and the sub is still there
Yes… I may retreat my dumb transport and fighters

now now, lets not make fun of virgins.  i’m playing joe cold, i think i’m doing alright, but its just about to be rnd 3, and this is where the allies usually get it together.  we’ll see.

If you have $120 to spend, chances are you’ve won the game anyway.

@LT04:

@Frontovik:

also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
a question i’m still wondering about
perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts

They would have to be swollows.  Now are they African or Europian?

LT

I Don’t know that    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!