Feigning an Amphibious Assault

@Polishpowerhouse you’re welcome. Glad it helped

@AndrewAAGamer said in Global 1940 Rule Question re: scrambling and amphibious assaults:

@Panther said in Global 1940 Rule Question re: scrambling and amphibious assaults:

#3.
The American units only watch the scenery, as friendly powers never attack together. As Britain in your scenario is the attacker, the British transports may retreat, if possible.

In this scenario the transports were already in the SZ so they would not be allowed a retreat. However, if they left the SZ and came back in then they could retreat.

Right, that is the way that makes a retreat “possible”.

@wittman
Where are you from, if I may ask?

@ShadowHAwk:

@wittmann:

1. Yes.
2. Yes. Each scrambling Fighter would get one roll of 4 to hit and sink one TT, with its cargo onboard. On the next turn the attacker could retreat any surviving Transports. (Or stay and try an be sunk again, naturally,)
3. A Sub is ignored, unless a Scramble happens, then it is in the fight.
You did realise, however, that a Sub forbids an amphibious assault, if the Transport(s) is not escorted?

Where is that rule in the book? I heared from it but in my game this weekend i could not find it.

Thought that transports can only ignore subs if they got a warship sailing with them.

See the rulebook:
@rulebook:

Transports
….
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.

So the requirement of an escorting warship applies to the ability to unload troops (not to ignore a submarine).

HTH :-)

@Gargantua:

If your sub fails, and the other sub survives you must retreat.

Even if the attacking sub doesn’t sink the enemy’s sub, the transports can still do debarkment.
It needs only that the other sub submerge.

the aircraft are committed to the first round of combat…they can retreat if they survive.
You are allowed to send air units into a sea zone that fighters may be scrambled.

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

My foolproof plan to beat Russia:
-a huge stack in Finland
-a huge stack in Poland
-a huge stack in Romania
-tons of planes

And to hold off the western allies:
-huge stacks in several places like Germany, seazones etc…

:-D