Attacking defenseless transports prevents offshorebombardment, good or bad?

  • '12

    The new rules of 1942 prevent transports from being used as blockers.  A fleet may pass through a group of defenseless transports leaving a combat unit behind to dispatch them while the remainder move on to a second sea zone.  Since this is part of the combat movement phase it’s perfectly fine.

    When these same transports are present in a seazone where an amphibious assault will be launched from the attacker has to decide if the entire fleet must engage the transport(s) or perform offshore bombardment.

    Technically only one battle can occur from the seazone either attack the ships or the shore.  I am curious to see what people would think about 2 versions of a rule modification to allow both attacks to occur.

    Rev 1) In a situation where only defenseless transports are present a single attacking piece can be used to destroy them allowing the rest to perfrom offshore bombardment.

    Rev 2) This is much more radical.  In a situation where there is a defending fleet, some of the attacking fleet is held in reserve.  Combat occurs in the sea zone and if the attacker wins, then the the reserve fleet performs offshore bombardment.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    I think that Revision 2 makes sense, because the offshore bombardment is basically a part of the land battle (it kills enemy land units after all). I’m against Revision 1 because it addresses an unusual situation, making the rule hard to remember.


  • For revision 2, what would happen if the defender wins the battle?

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    In that case, the amphibious attack could not take place. I would say that the ships involved in the intended amphibious attack would remain in the sea zone without any further combat at that time, and the situation would be resolved on the defender’s next turn.
    And of course, when the attacker decides to withdraw during naval combat, the units involved in the amphibious assault should withdraw as well.


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    Rev 1) In a situation where only defenseless transports are present a single attacking piece can be used to destroy them allowing the rest to perfrom offshore bombardment.

    I think this is a question of value… You can chose to ignore transports, allowing Bombardment on the territory, which improves your chances of winning the IPC’s and position from territory.
    …OR choose to sink Transports Each costing 7 IPC’s but lose the bombardment option.
    I think they did this to force the choice, for strategic purposes and game balance

    @MrMalachiCrunch:

    Rev 2) This is much more radical.  In a situation where there is a defending fleet, some of the attacking fleet is held in reserve.  Combat occurs in the sea zone and if the attacker wins, then the the reserve fleet performs offshore bombardment.

    Doesn’t make much sense to me, If an Entire Sea Zone is considered hostile because of any amount of surface warships, any Sea units entering their fire range are vulnerable.  If i were a defending Carrier with planes and i see lots of ships Im gonna try to sink the most valued units, it would help my defense in the land portion. Also, if the attacker could do that then the defender should have some similar balancing option, like maybe the ability to retreat defending planes, to the Land Territ.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 3
  • 38
  • 3
  • 14
  • 4
  • 3
  • 6
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts