Retreating from a combined amphibious assault and land attack. Is it possible?

@krieghund Yeah. Fair enough. Fortunately he resigned because of Germany. I wanted to play out the fight. :-)

The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.

In general, I agree with what you are saying. My theory is that it’s better to take two equal but losing positions on separate areas of the board than to take one position of strength. The problem in this case is that the northern Russian stack and British-held oilfields, although in separate areas of the board, aren’t equal positions - Britian is much easier to take down and the reward is much higher. Therefore, in this case there is no alternative but to take one position of strength.

The assumption behind my first comment was that if the Russians link up with the British, the combined stack would actually be enough to create such a position and keep the Germans at bay. In a game where it cannot, what have the Allies been doing for 8+ rounds?

The two scenarios I can think of where the Allies still have a chance after Moscow falls, but the British are weak in the Middle East are 1) Japan does something like an India crush that targets Britain or 2) Britain and America have been making landings in Western Europe. In either of those scenarios, if Russia is to retreat, I agree they should not go down south.

If neither scenario applies, and the British have been attempting to build strength in the Middle East, yet it isn’t enough to stop Germany even with the entire Russian stack, the appropriate move is to concede.

Correct.
Subs are cheap and powerful. Destroyers cost more and are very necessary to combat them.
Destroyers (DD) are also necessary  for blocking fleets, as the cheapest Surface Warship.

While it can be expensive to send just air units against ground units, sometimes it is warranted.
In a recent game of 1942 2nd edition, Germany was really giving Russia a hard time and Russia was having trouble having enough troops and tanks to retake their own territories. The US and UK had built up sizable air forces so they took turns attacking the German infantry and tanks so on Russia’s turn, they could simply move in and take the territories thus improving their income.
While the US/UK did lose some expensive air units, it worked out very well as Russia was able to roll up a lot of territory and Germany just couldn’t produce enough to reverse the tide. Russian tanks would blitz 2 territories while Germany could only take the 2nd territory back in combat. Then here would come those dang Brit or American planes again.

As someone who has had to read a LOT of pages of rules related to AAG40 (but WHAT a fun game!), the answer to your question is referenced here, in the AA 1940 Pacific Rules FAQ (page 4):

"Q. Let’s say I’m doing an amphibious assault and there are no enemy ships in the sea zone
around the island I’m attacking, but the island has an airbase and enemy fighters. Can I move
extra ships and planes into the sea zone along with my transports that won’t support the
assault just in case my opponent decides to scramble the fighters to defend the sea zone?
What about if there’s only an enemy sub in the sea zone? Can I move a destroyer in along with
my transport just to keep the sub from getting a free shot at it, even though the destroyer will
not participate in the assault?

A. Yes, in both cases. You may move units into a sea that presents a danger to your units during
combat movement, even though they may not actually end up fighting. Just the chance that there will
be combat is enough to allow it."

Attached is that FAQ for your review, and happy gaming!

AA 1940 Pacific Rules FAQ.pdf

Sounds like a good weekend war game for ya Gargantua

I tried it already:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.75

It wasn’t one of my better games and I doubt it should be used as a guideline (think it was my third Global?)

I wouldn’t recommend it under the current True Neutral rules unless Germany or Japan seriously sends some loaded transports and a carrier group to contest S. America (and be willing to invest in a minor IC as well).  It’s just too much bonus to the US with all those extra free infantry produced.  Japan could send a loaded transport(s) to take Chile on J3 in conjunction with an attack on Pearl Harbor; if Germany is threatening a Sealion and the US is built heavily into the Europe theater, it might work.  You could also try a combined assault with Germany attacking from Gibraltar on G3 to seize Brazil or Argentina while Japan invades Chile; if you combine both carrier groups together and both powers built minor ICs, it could tie up the US for quite a while.  It will also be a huge drain on the Axis war effort too, for a measly 8 S. American IPCs, but it might be worth it if it takes the US out of the war for another 4-5 turns.