The thing is, even if there was a kamikaze strike carried out in said seazone, ships in that zone would still be able to move in the non-combat phase normally because they were not involved with “combat” because the kamikazes didn’t “create” combat in the zone.
So it’s not like when someone builds a destroyer into your zone or moves a sub into your zone that you want to attack, where you would need the rule that allows you to move away to avoid combat. The kamikaze strike doesn’t prevent your ships (that weren’t involved in bombarding) from moving in non-com the way they would be prevented from moving if they were engaged in combat with an enemy ship.
This implies that some of the surface warships in the sea zone can be elected to “support” the amphibious assault and some can be elected not to. Those supporting would not be able to move in non-combat move like you said.
This seems consistent with the rulebook:
“Moving transports and their cargo into a sea zone from which you plan to make an amphibious assault counts as a combat move, even if there are no defending surface warships there and there is no potential for air units to be scrambled (see “Scramble,” page 15). This is also true of any units that will support the assault. Further, if enemy air units could potentially be scrambled to defend the sea zone, additional units may be moved into the sea zone to combat them in case they are indeed scrambled.”
What’s still unclear is if those surface warships that are elected not to support the amphibious assault are eligible for kamikaze strikes.
One could infer from the kamikaze section that only the ships elected to support the amphibious assault are eligible for kamikaze strikes by this sentence:
“Surface warships that are destroyed by a kamikaze strike (capital ships still take 2 hits) are immediately removed and will not participate in the subsequent battle.”
This implies that any surviving ship does participate in a battle, but we already established that if ships are not supporting the amphibious assault they are not involved in any battle and can move in non-combat movement. So, can we conclude from this that units elected not to be supporting the amphibious assault are not eligible for kamikaze strikes?
In the particular case of our game there happens to be a US aircraft carrier loaded with two UK fighters (i.e. cargo) among other ships in the sea zone. The US would like to avoid the loaded carrier getting kamikazed but has no means of moving it in the combat move phase (not a hostile sea zone, not potentially hostile due to scramble, no other potential sea combats in range)
Do you see any way the amphibious assault can be done in the sea zone without subjecting the loaded aircraft carrier to possible kamikaze strikes?