Let’s support this effort.
Are there any updates? Are they working on this now?
More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40
-
@marshmallowofwar ok, and the US Transport with the ANZACs; yes did follow those rules and sequence. So, the US transport can go into the ‘empty’ SZ off the Carolina Islands during its US non-combat even though the islands have an air base and enemy fighters stationed there? (during the ANZAC phase, they moved in cruisers and fighters into the SZ for the Amphib landing and won.)
-
@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:
@marshmallowofwar ok, and the US Transport with the ANZACs; yes did follow those rules and sequence. So, the US transport can go into the ‘empty’ SZ off the Carolina Islands during its US non-combat even though the islands have an air base and enemy fighters stationed there? (during the ANZAC phase, they moved in cruisers and fighters into the SZ for the Amphib landing and won.)
Yes, the US transport can go to the sea zone as long as it does not contain any surface warships belonging to a hostile power.
If the ANZAC amphibious assault is met with a scramble that succeeds in killing all the attacking units in the sea zone, the US transport cannot be killed because it technically is not participating in the attack. This example is specifically pointed out in the rules.
Marsh
-
Wait I’m confused, can’t fighters only scramble if there’s a naval battle? I didn’t think they could initiate it
-
@tin-can-of-the-sea The scramble is from the Axis forces in Caroline Islands defending against the amphibious assault.
You are correct. Scramble only occurs on defensive side. And that is what is happening here. Only there is no naval battle, only the assault.
-
@surfer so if there’s no naval battle what are the fighters doing? They don’t get to attack the destroyer do they?
-
Fighters can scramble to defend against naval attacks AND amphibious assaults. All naval units associated with the country conducting the amphibious assault in the SZ are considered part of the amphibious assault.
So the fighters will defend against all attacking units. But if there were US units (like the transport, or a DD), they would not defend against those. -
@tin-can-of-the-sea yes, aircraft can scramble to defend a sea zone from an amphibious attack even if there’s no defending ships in the zone
-
@tincanofthesea just getting back to this scenario: An empty US transport is in an Australian waters. On ANZAC’s turn, two ANZAC units (lets say INF and Arty) load up. On the US turn, non-combat, it sails to Carolina Islands that are occupied by some Japanese fighters. There are no Japanese naval assets in the waters around the Carolina Islands. There is no combat and no assault at this time. On ANZAC’s turn, the INF and Arty ‘assault’ or ‘unload’ and attack the Japanese forces on the Carolina Islands. Wow… this appears to be very unique.
-
@mikemikemike Yes, but bear in mind that unless ANZAC brings some sea and/or air units to the sea zone to support the assault, Japan can simply scramble and stop it in its tracks. If ANZAC brings nothing and Japan scrambles, there is no battle, as the ANZAC land units are cargo and the US units can’t attack on ANZAC’s turn. However, since ANZAC can’t clear the sea zone of defending units (scrambled fighters), the assault cannot proceed, and the ANZAC units must remain on the transports.
-
@krieghund But, can Japan scramble against US ships when it is ANZACs attack? That is, what if the US also put some surface warships in that sea zone in its non-combat turn- would Japan have to ‘fight’ them in the scramble or just the ANZAC ships? This is really complicated and might be not addressed by any current rules or errata. thanks (and this is mostly acedemic)
-
@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:
But, can Japan scramble against US ships when it is ANZACs attack? That is, what if the US also put some surface warships in that sea zone in its non-combat turn- would Japan have to ‘fight’ them in the scramble or just the ANZAC ships?
Japan is scrambling against the ANZAC amphibious assault, not the US ships. The US units are not part of the attack, as it’s ANZAC’s turn, not the US’s.
This is really complicated and might be not addressed by any current rules or errata. thanks (and this is mostly acedemic)
This is addressed by the multi-national forces rules on page 21 of the Rulebook, and by the following FAQ entry:
Q. Say the United Kingdom launches an amphibious assault from a US transport without any supporting UK sea or air units in the sea zone, and then Japan scrambles. What happens?
A. In effect, nothing happens. The US transport doesn’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the US’s turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed.
Suggested Topics
