Rules question

@Zarito:

I was just wondering if it is allowed to send more than two planes to a battle in a seazone when only one carrier could be there at the end of turn. The motivation would be that some of the aircraft would die in the battle and each individual aircraft can land on the carrier. Did not find an answer in the rulebook but probably didn’t look thoroughly enough.

Look here:

@rulebook:

Air Units
…
You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It
could also include noncombat moves by a carrier or the mobilization of a new carrier.

In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate
a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber. Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have
been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example,
aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if doing so leaves air units with no place to land after
combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). However, during noncombat movement
and new unit mobilization, you must provide for safe landing of as many air units as possible after all combats are resolved.
…

HTH :-)

True, I did not mean to say that one bad-luck battle increases your odds of a future good-luck battle. What I meant is that Global 1940 is a much bigger game than, say, Revised. Global has more units involved and more battles that matter. The effect of having more units and more battles is to soften the effect of any one unit missing or of any one battle going poorly. In other words, as you broaden your sample size, you get closer to achieving average results in the aggregate.

Great, thanks again. Great forum with awesome reaction time to simple questions!

Keep it up guys!

@RedHunter:

@soulfein:

@Zhukov44:

Why bother if I’m not serious about the Sea Lion bluff and USA can buy bombers to reinforce London anyway?

to deny uk investing early in middle east, thus giving ita a real chance to make 30+ early on, instead of getting convoyd out of the game without doing anything at all.

plus the initial naval investment (ac+trans) actually helps ger against barb, enabling ger to have a solid stack drinking in novgorod g3.

Invest with what fleet lol? UK fleet should be gone turn 1. Its not that hard to sink it. Just use fighters and fleet correctly. And if you want to annoy the UK take Scotland turn 2. But build armor for Russia. 1 tech token and 4 armor…best German 1 build I have found for Alpha 3. You are not going to be able to pull off Sealion unless the UK is stupid and even if you pull it off you bring USA into the war a turn early for which Japan is not thankful to you. You won’t normally be able to hold the UK and build enough for Russia, depending on turn 1 USA builds. If they think you are going to sealion you can bet they are going to build to counter turn 1.

I have said this before and I will say it again. If France doesn’t fall and the UK has fleet left you can pretty much call the game turn 1. It digs Germany into a huge hole they have a hard time recovering from.

sigh those transports plus ac built in g1 is not for sealion it s for reinforcing barbarossa… with that build u can stack novgorod in g3 - fastest way to make money from barb with ger.

meant uk can invest in middle east (factories + newly purchased land/naval units), ofc ger should hit uk navy in g1 that s a no brainer.

taking scotland on turn2 doesnt help barbarossa at all.

slightly off topic, usa is already in war in 2nd round max if u want to threaten a pac win, so sealion doesnt interfere with that.

if allies think ger s going for sealion and build to counter it, that s all the better for axis, since it means barbarossa will be much stronger, because allies built against sealion, not barb.

House rule:  Submarines fire at 2 on defense if there is no enemy destroyer present…?

Thanks DefinitiveS.  Somehow I totally missed the part in parentheses.  I just looked again and it jumped right out at me.  DUH!

@Zallomallo:

@Zcion:

Quick clarification:

in before mentioned case, UK income 8+5 from NO, 4 ger subs in sz109 and 1 in sz119.
would uk loose 8 or 10 ipc due to convoy disruption?

afaik you cant convoy disrup NO?

many thx
Zcion

Correct, disruption is capped by the surrounding territories’ income.

Well, it’s capped by the total value of each convoy zone’s adjacent spaces, which can technically exceed income collected from those territories.  But you’re correct in that disruption does not affect National Objectives or at least does not affect the 40 on West US.

However, I’m not certain of the timing of convoy vs objectives and whether convoy disruption affects total income after objectives are collected.  Convoys can only affect values of territories, but since they can exceed income you’d collect from territories (by the double dips similar to 109/119), I don’t know whether than can dig a little into objectives.  Based on the Pac40 west US errata, it would seem no but this is not specifically addressed by the errata, which clarified that WUS was not worth 40, it was only worth 10, and could only be blocked up to 10.

So, as long as britain is making an additional 2 ipcs income through other territories, if sz109 and sz119 are fully blocked, Britain will lose 10 ipcs (8 for 109 and 2 for 119).  If Britain is making less than 10 IPCs in income before national objectives, they collect 0 for those their territorial income, and then collect national objective ipcs.

However, it’s VERY rare indeed that the UK does not still collect from an african or canadian territory that would put its territorial income over 10, in which case, if sc109 and 119 are fully blocked, they lose 10 IPCS.

Plus Germany has a little extra incentive to make sure they keep it with the new NO.  Taking Norway and building an IC there won’t be the sure thing it’s always been up to now, but yes, if the US can pull it off it would be a major shift in power.