Battleship wound allocation

@panther Thank you very much panther…

@panther thanka. Not sure why the word acronym didn’t show this article. I did it in topics and posts search. Very helpful though.

@Du-Bist-Toten said in General Questions:

FURTHERMORE, the rules introduce another VERY interesting concept. They actually say that a sub can be held hostage in a zone, unable to go anywhere unless 1) the enemy destroyer above it leaves or 2) the sub fights its way out. In other words, a sub, when under an enemy destroyer, must either fight or “be frozen”. So it’s kinda trapped! Just move your destroyer to the same zone as a sub and then choose not to fight it; then the sub will be frozen until you move! The sub won’t attack you on the sub’s “turn” (even though the option is there) if the firepower of your fleet above it is too powerful! This “freezing of the sub” occurs because the rules say “If a submarine enters a sea zone containing an enemy destroyer, it MUST end its movement there.”

I’m afraid you’ve got this wrong. The rule you quoted means that a sub must stop if it encounters an enemy destroyer after it starts moving. If it begins its movement in such a zone, it may leave, as it did not enter the zone during its movement. Moving into a zone with an enemy destroyer merely stops a sub’s current movement - it does not pin the sub indefinitely.

So my question here is as follows: If a sub decides to fight it’s way out, and after one round of combat an enemy destroyer is still above it, can the sub just “chill out” and “just be frozen under the water” again AFTER the enemy retaliates for that round? OR does the sub have to fight to the death?

In this situation, if a sub were to attack rather than move away, it would have to fight to the death, as it could not submerge and would have no legal way to retreat. However, as I mentioned above, it may leave the zone, so it could move to an adjacent friendly zone and come back in combat movement before attacking, thus establishing a retreat route.

BUT, if NO DESTROYER is present, can the sub attack the fleet above for just one round, and then move two spaces away during non-combat movement IF the counter fire didn’t kill the sub? If a destroyer IS present above and the sub DOES kill it, can the sub move two spaces away during non-combat movement?

Neither of these is legal. Any land or sea unit that either made a combat movement or participated in combat may not move in noncombat movement.

I hope this helps.

I always make sure the USA buys a certain amount of IPC’s against Japan. And those purchases can only be used against Japan. It gives a more authentic feel to the game. And it makes yhe Allies fo something else than Europe 1st every move.

It’s quite worth it. My favorite version of the game.

I don’t really try to keep up with the US’s navy, I usually have the two AC’s and two BS’s that  Istart with post in the pacific, ready to pick off any new additional US naval units.  If they start building a fleet, I buy more fighter and bombers to hit them at range.

In short I use the Japanese to clear Asia and assist in Germany’s destruction of the Soviet Union.

A huge navy is great if you plan a landing, however there have been numerious games where I have an enormous navy and still to manage to lose massive numbers of land squares.

Occupy his time in the Atlantic, force the US to aid the UK.

Well both games were played with a time limit of 5 minutes per turn, with 2 minutes for movement. I had never played Axis and Allies with an automatic limit, and I was also playing with a different interface than I’m used to. So I made a lot of ignorant mistakes.

On the first game I simply got diced playing with Russia. Germany went for a round 1 8 armor buy and stacked Karelia. Then it moved the stack to Archangel. I lost the attack on Archangel despite having 70% odds…

The second one was simply crazy. Made a lot of mistakes with Japan on round 1 and half my fleet was at the bottom of the ocean by J2 while the US were going full Pacific. Meanwhile Russia sunk the German Med fleet (missed the 3rd fighter buy) and stacked Ukraine on R2 due to some other German messed up G1.
Well, what happened afterwards was that Japan immediately switched production to only infantry, fighters and bombers and started sending it all towards Russia until the US eventually caught up with the remaining Japanese fleet off Africa and sunk it. But meanwhile Japan was able to send 1 big infantry stack through Yakut while taking India and overrunning most of Africa. And the airforce started landing on Karelia to protect the German stack that moved there that was preventing the UK from landing and joining a very big Russian stack on West Russia.
Since the UK was blocked from major landings on Europe (Germany, W. Europe and Karelia were all defended) it bought 1 IC for South Africa, and later 1 IC for India, after the Americans liberated it. And that also build 2 ICs on Phillipines and Borneo. The UK meanwhile had also gotten East Indies.
Meanwhile, the UK started worrying about the 8 fighters, 3 bombers and 1 Japanese sub within range of its fleet, so it decided to pull back from SZ5 to SZ6 and add a 2nd carrier and destroyer, giving it a total of 3 carriers, 1 battleship, 4 destroyers, 1 sub and 6 fighters. Enough to stop the Japanese. Alas, not enough to stop a kamikaze Japanese attack followed by Germany’s 5 fighters, 2 bombers and 1 sub. Just that battle was worth losing the game.
Germany then managed to build up 20 inf and 30 arm and send them to West Russia, forcing the Russians to pull back from Caucasus, which felt on the next turn. The UK and the US meanwhile had ICs all over Asia to try to help the Russians. Japan was fortified against the US but out of the game. But after conquering Caucasus I was thinking of sending that army to liberate Asia (all the ICs… yummy). However, Allies managed to liberate Karelia and take Rome. Game over, they got the 9 victory cities.

Right - I forgot about the sub in sz 8.  I’ve become accustomed to sending that sub after the defenseless UK transport off eastern Canada.  However, ensuring the destruction of the UK Battleship seems like a much higher priority.  Thanks.