Nemo & 1EyedJacks - Open Thread

[Nemo121]

Hi, 1EyedJacks and I have agreed to have an open thread to discuss game issues, mod issues and, I presume, to insult and lie to eachother shamelessly [:D]. This is an open thread meaning anyone at all can post.


So, currently I'm running through the first turn. I've organised my CV strikes and a few invasion TFs and I've reshuffled most of my escorts but my re-assignation of air assets has been stopped about 1/3rd of the way to completion since I'm on hold while we settle an issue surrounding the Soviet Union. 1EyedJacks has reconsidered the whole Soviet Union/Japan truce till 1st July 1942 thing and we're negotiating around that.

My position is that we agreed for it to be inactive so any change in status now is something we both have to agree on and since having them active disadvantages me significantly. I'm much less inclined to give the Soviet's active status given that I have basically allowed 1EyedJacks to save his entire airforce through rebasing them prior to my 1st turn attack and I feel that saving him 400 to 500 planes on Day 1 is already enough help. So I've offered two counter-proposals:
1. Give up the right to rebase those planes but have the Soviets active.
2. As his stated worry is that I'll just empty Manchukuo ( never my intention ) I would agree to a 7,000 AV basement below which I will not let the forces in Manchukuo fall.

I think that the second option is best as it give both of us what we say we are looking for without changing the underlying rules to which we have both agreed.

Other considerations:
The version we are playing give the Allies an additional 4 Essex CVs in 45 and some Glen-equivalent subs so I think they've already got quite a few additional bonuses. Japan is, after all, over the course of the war, the underdog. I think that fact needs to be borne in mind.


With that said, one of my reasons for posting this is that I want the Open Thread to be an area in which issues can be raised and feedback garnered. I'm absolutely certain that 1EyedJack's view will differ [:D] but that's the nature of differences of opinion [:D] and the world would be boring if we all agreed on everything all the time.

[1EyedJacks]

Originally I accepted a truce between Japan/Russia – I do not deny that. Prior to the start of the game Nemo also recommended that I utilize advisors for the game to provide a better challenge for him. I accepted the use of advisors as this is my first time playing as the allies and I have very limited experience with EA (I have another game with GBL that is less intense). I would state that I am very happy with both Michael and Alfred and I have great respect for both of them.

One of my advisors recommended that Russia not start out with a truce. After examining the logic presented I concur with the recommendation to leave Russia active. The game has not started yet. It was my understanding that prior to Nemo starting his turn he would send me a copy of the latest-greatest EA Mod as he was inputting corrections. I made a request to cancel any truce/cease-fire between Russia/Japan prior to receiving the latest version of EA which is Version 1.34.

I am simply asking to revert to what was posted. I accept that the Soviet Union is active and prone to attack on Day 1 as posted in the house rules.

House Rules – Empire's Ablaze

Victory Determination
1. A points determined auto victory is disregarded.
2. A direct Allied victory by force of arms is achieved after (a) recapturing most of its lost colonies, (b) capturing a significant part of Japan's overseas empire, and (c) capturing Tokyo.
3. A direct Japanese victory by force of arms is achieved after (a) liberating most of the Allied colonies, (b) retaining its overseas empire intact, and (c) capturing Salt Lake City.
4. Either player may surrender unconditionally if he is of the view that he cannot prevent his opponent from achieving a direct victory by force of arms.
5. A draw ensues if the scenario ends before victory is determined.

Empires Ablaze Allied Oceanic Shipping Channel
6. The x co-ordinate (1,yy) and the y co-ordinate (xx,148) constitute an Allied oceanic shipping channel ("the AOSC").
7. The AOSC is reserved solely for the use of Allied units. Japanese land, sea or air units may never enter the AOSC.
8. Allied units and bases in the AOSC are immune from Japanese attack, capture or recon. Allied units in the AOSC may not attack or recon Japanese units or bases which are situated outside the AOSC.
9. The three Allied Bases which are within the AOSC are:

Capetown
South Atlantic Entry
Port Stanley

Operational Use Prohibited Due to lack of Available Counter-measures
10. Aircraft will not deploy mines.
11. The Japanese G9M aircraft is not to be assigned the mission port attack.
12. The Japanese Ki-264 Behemoth bomber is not to fly below 20,000 feet.

Empires Ablaze Game Balance for Allied Survival in 1942
13. Japanese units may never attack, enter, or capture Aden.
14. Japanese units may never attack, enter or capture the two Soviet bases Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk, nor any Soviet units located at these two bases.
15. Japanese units are not permitted to cut the Trans-Siberian Railway line betwen Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk.

Acceptable Play
16. With the exception of the Allied bases listed in #9, #15 and #16 above, all other bases may be attacked, entered or captured by either player.
17. Sub/para drops only on dot beach/base hexes are allowed provided the entire LCU/air transport unit participates. Drops of only a few squads, or outside of dot beach/base hexes are not permitted.
18. Until fighting breaks out between the Soviet Union and Japan, the Western Allies may use Soviet airfields to refuel airplanes in transit but may not use Soviet ports to refuel or resupply naval assets.
19. Political Points ("PPs") are to be paid by LCU/LBA to operate away from their assigned geographic territorial command.
20. PPs are to be paid by units before they commence their movement to a base operated by their new command. Units which are in transit to a base of their new command may, whilst temporarily located at a base operated by a different command, respond to enemy activity without the need to expend PPs but will expend new PPs if they do no proceed with their movement to a base of their assigned command.
21. Naval Task Force may replenish at any port sized 3 or greater.

Malacca Strait
22. Possession of Singapore (hex 22,51) prevents all enemy surface ships from transiting or remaining in the following hexes:

(22,50) Johore Bahru
(21,51)
(22,51) Singapore

Enemy submarines may transit or remain in the above hexes.

7th December 1941 turn only
23. Japanese sea invasions, which approach the aerial reconned invasion site from international waters and sail from nearby Japanese bases, are permitted.
24. The Allies cannot expend PPs.
25. The Allies may redeploy LCU/LBA within their existing territorial commands. Both sides will be allowed to have their LBA accept pilots and reinforcements
26. Allied ships "anchored" in ports smaller than size 3 may be formed into Task Forces. Allied warships (not TK/AP/AK) already in a TF are allowed to have their orders changed.
27. Allied naval Task Forces may be given new orders to sail provided such orders do not entail attacking a Japanese base or moving to a base owned by another Allied country.


P.s. I am also willing to offer a binding ceasefire in the Soviet Union until 1st January 1943 or even June 1st 1943. Otherwise the Soviet Union will be active and prone to being attacked on Day 1.



My arguments are thus:

1. While Nemo may view initial pre-game negotiations as part of the game play I do not. Nor was pre-game negotiations presented to me as part of the game play. I already plan to invest a substantial part of my time in this game. I would not protest if pre-game negotiations had been presented as part of the game.

2. The entire set of house rules was created by Nemo. I have accepted everything and added nothing. I do not wish to have a binding ceasefire between Russia and Japan. I am willing to accept a possible Day 1 strike by Japan as a legal option by Japan.

3. Nemo stated he is looking for a tough game against a good opponent to test himself and the mod. I have a lot of experience playing Japan in stock and the Iron Storm mod. Nemo built EA. I'm playing it for the 1st time. Nemo has played two or three people already. I have a pair of advisors to brain-storm with and to help ease my learning curve in an attempt to put up a good fight.

4. I do not wish to lose items 25,26, and 27 of the house rules because I choose not to start this game with a ceasefire between Russia/Japan on T1.

I have stated repeatedly that I do not wish to lose house rules 25,26, and 27 to start a game without a ceasefire. At the same time, I really do wish to test myself against Nemo’s style of play. I have countered that if he absolutely requires something in turn for starting a game without a ceasefire then I would – if there is no other option – be willing to lose the redeployment of air units per item 25. I stated that I did not wish to lose items 26 and 27 as Nemo has full knowledge of the current orders for all allied ships/TFs that are not in a port.

I’m not sure why Nemo wants to post negotiations in this AAR but that’s my side of it. I’m not looking for a vote from other members of the forum. I’m not looking for approval. I’m not even looking for feedback regarding negotiations.

I am asking Nemo for a game with the house rules, as proposed, and with no ceasefire between Japan/Russia.

If Nemo feels put out and there is no other way to get this game started with Russia maintaining an active “no ceasefire” status then I will offer up the loss of moving my air units as permitted in item #25 of the house rules.

I was really looking forward to a fun game but this bickering is starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Nemo121]

Hmm, I posted it here since it was a game issue ( which is something which I think is fair game for discussion ) and I don't want to be unfair to you ( and if loads of people weighed in saying I was ueber-unfair I'd have to take that on board and consider that perhaps I was being unfair... I am quite happy letting the forum weigh in on what is and isn't fair to both sides ). I do however think you ask for too much. It's fine to get the sun and sea but maybe you leave the stars out of it u know?

In terms of the ceasefire, you've told me you want the region active ( which, to me, means that the Soviets can be active and sortieing their planes and subs from port on 7th or 8th December ) but then you've said that you aren't intending any offensive activity and those two just are mutually contradictory. This leads me to believe you are intending to go active in terms of attacking me with the Soviets on 8th December 1941 whilst trying to sell me the idea that you are going to be quiescent. This is one of the reasons I'm so cautious about it. If you said "They are active from 7th December and I'm going to invade you from 8th December" I'd feel a lot happier with the situation since I'd have some idea of what was going to happen. Right now I have to assume the worst.

While Nemo may view initial pre-game negotiations as part of the game play I do not.

Sure you do. Your only reason for wanting the Soviets active is to strengthen your position. This is entirely reasonable but it is definitely shaping the game through the negotiations for tactical and strategic benefit. My issue is that we've agreed one set of rules and I've begun planning and now you want to renegotiate without any quid pro quo.


If the 7,000 AV limit on my forces in Manchukuo isn't acceptable then I would accept the Soviets going active from 7th December in return for no rebasing of airplanes in the Soviet Union. Your reasons for rebasing elsewhere ( heightened alert and IJN TFs just off the coast of Java etc ) simply don't apply to the Soviet Union so you can rebase wherever you want elsewhere but not in the Soviet Union.


So, you get everything you want but I don't want you using the House Rules to stack every Soviet fighter in the hemisphere at Vladivostok. If you want them active from 7th December then you lose the Soviet fleet in return for tieing down more of my LCUs and air units. Personally I think you had a very reasonable deal, enter the war on July 14th but with the knowledge that your fleet can sortie on the 13th and escape destruction but you get to choose those options for yourself.

So, if you agree to the following:
Soviets active on December 7th BUT no sortieing/rebasing of SOVIET planes or ships/subs until December 8th then we're good to go.


You are getting about 95% of what you want and I hope you'll recognise that. If it isn't acceptable to you then let me know but hopefully this is acceptable to you and I can begin my planning again. Let's settle this in-game. Fair? [8D]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
3. A direct Japanese victory by force of arms is achieved after (a) liberating most of the Allied colonies, (b) retaining its overseas empire intact, and (c) capturing Salt Lake City.

[:D][:D][:D]

I /really/ want to see this happen. [:D]

[ny59giants]

So, if you agree to the following:
Soviets active on December 7th BUT no sortieing/rebasing of SOVIET planes or ships/subs until December 8th then we're good to go.

So, the Soviets are the only Allies that cannot rebase LBA or make TF for the 7th. If so, I say at this point, for Michael to go with it.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, I posted it here since it was a game issue ( which is something which I think is fair game for discussion ) and I don't want to be unfair to you ( and if loads of people weighed in saying I was ueber-unfair I'd have to take that on board and consider that perhaps I was being unfair... I am quite happy letting the forum weigh in on what is and isn't fair to both sides ). I do however think you ask for too much. It's fine to get the sun and sea but maybe you leave the stars out of it u know?

In terms of the ceasefire, you've told me you want the region active ( which, to me, means that the Soviets can be active and sortieing their planes and subs from port on 7th or 8th December ) but then you've said that you aren't intending any offensive activity and those two just are mutually contradictory. This leads me to believe you are intending to go active in terms of attacking me with the Soviets on 8th December 1941 whilst trying to sell me the idea that you are going to be quiescent. This is one of the reasons I'm so cautious about it. If you said "They are active from 7th December and I'm going to invade you from 8th December" I'd feel a lot happier with the situation since I'd have some idea of what was going to happen. Right now I have to assume the worst.

While Nemo may view initial pre-game negotiations as part of the game play I do not.

Sure you do. Your only reason for wanting the Soviets active is to strengthen your position. This is entirely reasonable but it is definitely shaping the game through the negotiations for tactical and strategic benefit. My issue is that we've agreed one set of rules and I've begun planning and now you want to renegotiate without any quid pro quo.


If the 7,000 AV limit on my forces in Manchukuo isn't acceptable then I would accept the Soviets going active from 7th December in return for no rebasing of airplanes in the Soviet Union. Your reasons for rebasing elsewhere ( heightened alert and IJN TFs just off the coast of Java etc ) simply don't apply to the Soviet Union so you can rebase wherever you want elsewhere but not in the Soviet Union.


So, you get everything you want but I don't want you using the House Rules to stack every Soviet fighter in the hemisphere at Vladivostok. If you want them active from 7th December then you lose the Soviet fleet in return for tieing down more of my LCUs and air units. Personally I think you had a very reasonable deal, enter the war on July 14th but with the knowledge that your fleet can sortie on the 13th and escape destruction but you get to choose those options for yourself.

So, if you agree to the following:
Soviets active on December 7th BUT no sortieing/rebasing of SOVIET planes or ships/subs until December 8th then we're good to go.


You are getting about 95% of what you want and I hope you'll recognise that. If it isn't acceptable to you then let me know but hopefully this is acceptable to you and I can begin my planning again. Let's settle this in-game. Fair? [8D]

I have played Mike many times Fion. If he says he will not use the Soviets aggressively even though they are active you can trust him. I think he just wants you to have to plan to face them, whereas currently you can effectively forget about them for six months. Having seen how great a player you are and how fast you gobble up territory I do not blame him for wanting to force you to deploy some of your forces defensively. I personally do not think he is being unreasonable. He is taking on the Master in his own backyard at his own game. He is also not used to your style of play and will be very hard pressed to survive six months, even with Alfred's incredible insight. (Are you two really the same person btw? You seem to read each other spookily well).

I think Mike is being brave to the point of foolishness in taking you on. He is also playing the side he has very little experience with. I certainly would not be able to handle a game with you and feel that this small concession will give Mike a slightly better chance of giving you a game lasting until the late war period. Have you and Alfred ever played against each other?

Just my 2p worth...

Very best regards

Carl

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, I posted it here since it was a game issue ( which is something which I think is fair game for discussion ) and I don't want to be unfair to you ( and if loads of people weighed in saying I was ueber-unfair I'd have to take that on board and consider that perhaps I was being unfair... I am quite happy letting the forum weigh in on what is and isn't fair to both sides ). I do however think you ask for too much. It's fine to get the sun and sea but maybe you leave the stars out of it u know?

In terms of the ceasefire, you've told me you want the region active ( which, to me, means that the Soviets can be active and sortieing their planes and subs from port on 7th or 8th December ) but then you've said that you aren't intending any offensive activity and those two just are mutually contradictory. This leads me to believe you are intending to go active in terms of attacking me with the Soviets on 8th December 1941 whilst trying to sell me the idea that you are going to be quiescent. This is one of the reasons I'm so cautious about it. If you said "They are active from 7th December and I'm going to invade you from 8th December" I'd feel a lot happier with the situation since I'd have some idea of what was going to happen. Right now I have to assume the worst.

While Nemo may view initial pre-game negotiations as part of the game play I do not.

Sure you do. Your only reason for wanting the Soviets active is to strengthen your position. This is entirely reasonable but it is definitely shaping the game through the negotiations for tactical and strategic benefit. My issue is that we've agreed one set of rules and I've begun planning and now you want to renegotiate without any quid pro quo.


If the 7,000 AV limit on my forces in Manchukuo isn't acceptable then I would accept the Soviets going active from 7th December in return for no rebasing of airplanes in the Soviet Union. Your reasons for rebasing elsewhere ( heightened alert and IJN TFs just off the coast of Java etc ) simply don't apply to the Soviet Union so you can rebase wherever you want elsewhere but not in the Soviet Union.


So, you get everything you want but I don't want you using the House Rules to stack every Soviet fighter in the hemisphere at Vladivostok. If you want them active from 7th December then you lose the Soviet fleet in return for tieing down more of my LCUs and air units. Personally I think you had a very reasonable deal, enter the war on July 14th but with the knowledge that your fleet can sortie on the 13th and escape destruction but you get to choose those options for yourself.

So, if you agree to the following:
Soviets active on December 7th BUT no sortieing/rebasing of SOVIET planes or ships/subs until December 8th then we're good to go.


You are getting about 95% of what you want and I hope you'll recognise that. If it isn't acceptable to you then let me know but hopefully this is acceptable to you and I can begin my planning again. Let's settle this in-game. Fair? [8D]

I'm not asking to rebase ships/subs - it would be against the house rules. I've already accepted that you can attack Russia and her ports on T1.

I counter your offer with the agreement that I will not stack extra fighters @ Vladivostok but retain the right to rebase units in Russia per house rule #25.

I see no reason why Russia would not apply to my previously stated reasoning behind a heightened alert by other contries based on the pre-war actions of Japan. They are "neighbor" countries. The soviets are right across the Sea of Japan and would note the increased levels of production in the shipyards and factories long before a war started.

[Nemo121]

Ok, so just so we're clear:
 
1. Ships in port stay in port in December 7th ( that's for all Allied countries ).
 
2. You can issue orders to TFs at sea.
 
3. You can rebase planes within the country they are in on December 7th ( e.g. planes in the Phillipines can rebase within the Phillipines, planes in malaysia can rebase in Malaysia etc ). The one exception to this is that you cannot base more fighters into Vladivostok on December 7th.
 
 
And you can assume from this that I'm going to hit Vladivostok hard. I'll begin planning ASAP

[Nemo121]

GBL,
 
LOL! re: Alfred... No, I think Alfred's read the same guys I have and whether he and I would agree about the response to a given situation we'd both be able to give you the doctrinal Soviet response, the German response and the American one. All he has to do is think about the 1930s doctrinal Soviet response, modify it with a view to what the logistical situation is and he'll have what I'm going to do. All I had to do is think the same way and I've got what he's going to predict I'm going to do. We've never played eachother.
 

As to 1EyedJacks playing a Master or being brave to the point of foolhardiness etc... Nah, he's just playing another player who is now in a disastrous strategic position ( surrounded on all sies by foes who have far greater productive capacity ). I have more readiness and the key to this game will be to convert my enhanced readiness into enhanced production before the Allies can reach military parity. That really is the key to the whole mod. "How much can you, as Japan, conquer before the Allies become too strong to conquer more." The more you conquer and more quickly you turn its productive capacity to your advantage the stronger you are and the more you can continue to conquer. Obviously though I expect most Japanese players to over-extend, something I'm going to be careful to avoid.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Ok, so just so we're clear:

1. Ships in port stay in port in December 7th ( that's for all Allied countries ).

2. You can issue orders to TFs at sea.

3. You can rebase planes within the country they are in on December 7th ( e.g. planes in the Phillipines can rebase within the Phillipines, planes in malaysia can rebase in Malaysia etc ). The one exception to this is that you cannot base more fighters into Vladivostok on December 7th.


And you can assume from this that I'm going to hit Vladivostok hard. I'll begin planning ASAP

Very cool! TY Fionn. I was really bumming about the negotiations push from you - I was simply trying to get back to the original house rules offered and, unfortunately, I still don't see why you would feel put out by your own house rules... But I accept that and will move on.

I am clear with items 1-3 and look forward to the turn <grin>.

I am, of course, sorry to hear you will plan to attack mother Russia on T1 but that is your option per the house rules...

You had mentioned in earlier discussions that you would like a neutral 3rd part to have access to both passwords to insure the game could continue if one of us crawls under a rock <laughter>. Do you have someone in mind? I was wondering how you would feel if we asked a moderator if they would serve in that capacity?

Again, I look 4ward to playing with you. I look at this as both play and a learning experience <grin>. I expect that between you, Michael, and Alfred I will become a much better strategist. Thanks again for agreeing to a game with me.

TTFN,

Mike

[Nemo121]

Mike,

Thanks for agreeing to a game with me. I think the whole issue arose because once a game is agreed I view everything to do with setting the House Rules etc as part of the game whereas you don't. That's cool, that's how people are different.
&nbsp;
I have no-one in mind particularly but I've played AndyMac and I trust him ( he posted to my thread today so I know he is following the game ) so I'd suggest him unless you have someone you'd prefer.
&nbsp;
As to the Soviet Union - well, I didn't want to attack them but I feel I have no option given that I can't outrule your forces attacking me on December 8th. Overall though it should make things damned interesting. Tell me has Alfred talked to you about basing your Phillipine B-17s into the Soviet Union on D+1 yet ( plus whatever else you can scrounge together from CONUSA via Alaska?). If not, he will as he'll want you to hit me with B-17s ASAP to try to draw forces away from the schwerpunkt - which won't be happening in quite the way he and you will intend.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Mike,

Thanks for agreeing to a game with me. I think the whole issue arose because once a game is agreed I view everything to do with setting the House Rules etc as part of the game whereas you don't. That's cool, that's how people are different.

I have no-one in mind particularly but I've played AndyMac and I trust him ( he posted to my thread today so I know he is following the game ) so I'd suggest him unless you have someone you'd prefer.

As to the Soviet Union - well, I didn't want to attack them but I feel I have no option given that I can't outrule your forces attacking me on December 8th. Overall though it should make things damned interesting. Tell me has Alfred talked to you about basing your Phillipine B-17s into the Soviet Union on D+1 yet ( plus whatever else you can scrounge together from CONUSA via Alaska?). If not, he will as he'll want you to hit me with B-17s ASAP to try to draw forces away from the schwerpunkt - which won't be happening in quite the way he and you will intend.

I am more than fine with AndyMac - a good recommendation.

I would not base units from other countries in Russia unless Russia is at war. Don't get me wrong - I fully expect you to attack Russia. But until you do so there is technically no war between Russia and Japan...[8|]

I'd have to go back and read some of Alfred's posts but I don't think he has mentioned moving US assets to Russia. It will, of course be an option - [:D]

I'm still learning terms like "schwerpunkt" - I have a little bit of research to do - [:'(]

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I see no reason why Russia would not apply to my previously stated reasoning behind a heightened alert by other contries based on the pre-war actions of Japan. They are "neighbor" countries. The soviets are right across the Sea of Japan and would note the increased levels of production in the shipyards and factories long before a war started.

Not only that -- in December '41 the Soviets have Richard Sorge, arguably the greatest spy in history, in place in Tokyo. That's how they saved Moscow: Sorge informed his superiors that the Japanese were not going to attack, so Stalin was able to transfer cold-weather-equipped Siberian units to the German front.

[Andy Mac]

happy to if you both PM me your PW's I will stick em somewhere safe out of the way

[1EyedJacks]

Hi Nemo,

Is there a problem with the allied AV in this version? Some have zero capacity and none of them seem to have any ACU...

[Nemo121]

Nope, this is absolutely correct. the two Langley type ships will add 12 Av support to any base they anchor at but cannot fly planes while at sea. They are AVs, not CSs. Japanese AV work the same way.

[ny59giants]

20. PPs are to be paid by units before they commence their movement to a base operated by their new command. Units which are in transit to a base of their new command may, whilst temporarily located at a base operated by a different command, respond to enemy activity without the need to expend PPs but will expend new PPs if they do no proceed with their movement to a base of their assigned command.

How does this HR effect movement of 4e bombers which the Allies have and will have in increasing numbers moving from their current Command to a different Command, launching attacks on a particular base and then after an attack or two returning to their current Command?? Is it OK to do this or do PPs need to be spent?? Part of me wants to do some hit and run raids. [:D]

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

20. PPs are to be paid by units before they commence their movement to a base operated by their new command. Units which are in transit to a base of their new command may, whilst temporarily located at a base operated by a different command, respond to enemy activity without the need to expend PPs but will expend new PPs if they do no proceed with their movement to a base of their assigned command.

How does this HR effect movement of 4e bombers which the Allies have and will have in increasing numbers moving from their current Command to a different Command, launching attacks on a particular base and then after an attack or two returning to their current Command?? Is it OK to do this or do PPs need to be spent?? Part of me wants to do some hit and run raids. [:D]

I understand this to be hit-and-run missions are cool but if we keep the ACU in the new theatre we need to expand PP. So 1 or 2 quick strikes - like a Dolittle raid - are acceptable but then the ACU needs to withdraw.

I agree also - a few hit-n-runz will be fun.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Nope, this is absolutely correct. the two Langley type ships will add 12 Av support to any base they anchor at but cannot fly planes while at sea. They are AVs, not CSs. Japanese AV work the same way.

Hmmm. I've never played as allies B4 - I'm just used to Japanese AV having FP/FF...

[Nemo121]

ny59giants,
&nbsp;
I think the situation you describe would be a breach of the House Rules. Here's the situation Alfred and I discussed while we were coming up with the House Rules:
&nbsp;
1. B-17 unit assigned to WEST COAST gets re-assigned to Australian Command but while transiting the Pacific KB comes and raids the island it is on. The B-17 squadron is pressed into service to fight in that battle.
&nbsp;
2. Japanese Betties are transitting to a 4th fleet base in the Pacific from Burma ( where they were under Burma HQ ). As they pass to 4th Fleet they pass through the Southern
Area Command and conduct ASW ops there sinking a sub.
&nbsp;
The whole point was that if you were transitting one area on they way to another area then you wouldn't have to stand those bombers down if a surprise attack hit a base while they were transitting nearby BUT it isn't designed to allow hit and run raids where forces hop into the Soviet Union from India, launch 2 or 3 raids and the run back to India to rest and refit.
&nbsp;
So, if you were transitting from CONUSA to India and happened to land at a Soviet base on the way then, by all means, launch a single air raid from that base BUT if you are going to stay there for more than 1 day then you aren't transitting through, you are setting up and fighting and should pay the PP. The Allies get 250 PP per turn so should easily be able to afford this price IF they wish to do hit and run raids.

E.g. If you want to base bombers from India into the Soviet Union for 3 days then you will get 4 days worth of PPs ( 1000 PP ) and can pay on Day 1, 500 PP to change the assignation of 125 bombers, fly them into the Soviet Union and bomb on Days 2 and 3 and then fly them back to india on Day 4 ( costing another 500 PP to re-assign them to a British HQ ).
&nbsp;
I think it is a nice simple rule to avoid the whole system where you have hordes of units flying pell-mell from place to place to counter enemy thrusts. It isn't expensive either as transferring a 16 plane unit from CONUSA to India costs only 64 PP so long as it only stays in each base on the way for 1 day ( + 1 day of fighting if it gets surprised--- if it stays there for longer than a day you have to pay the PP and re-assign it to that base's commanding HQ ).
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Doolittle raid would take place from CVs so would be cost-free as those CVs are independent in terms of command.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
1EyedJacks,
Not all the IJN AVs can fly planes while underway. Half of those Allied CVs can operate planes while under way, the other half can't. I'm not sure what the ratio is for the Japanese but some can fly planes while under way, others can't. That's what I meant by things being the same for both sides. Hell, the Allies have an advantage since the Langley and Curtis can transport fighters etc on their half-decks while IJN AVs can't.