He can build 1 IC and 1 INF. The damage markers only indicate the limited production of a damaged IC.
A newly built IC is considered to be build in a new territory, with the resources and manpower available of the country it is in.
So, if the carrier was dependent on another battle to get to the pick-up zone, it would still be allowed?
Let’s say the British put their newly purchased navy in z2 on B1 but left a destroyer in z6. Then this couldn’t block my carrier (from z5 purchased on G1) getting to z3 to pick up fighters attacking z2 on G2, assuming I attacked the blocking destroyer?
Is this correct?
Yes. You can declare the movement of the carrier through the cleared sea zone in noncombat movement in order to make the fighter attack legal. If your fighters don’t survive the attack, you don’t have to move the carrier. If you don’t sink the destroyer and can’t move the carrier, the fighters will be lost at the end of the turn. If you sink the destroyer and at least one of your fighters survives, you must move the carrier to pick it up.
Amphibious assaults can be done in two steps, consisting of a sea battle and a land battle. In your example, both the cruiser and the transport would attack the destroyer. If the attackers win, the transport can offload and the land battle will occur. If the transport ends up retreating (or being sunk), the land battle will not occur and the transport may not offload.
While I think the SUBs are much improved over Revised OOTB, I feel they are still to vulnerable and not very cost effective.
Do you know if Sub Detection rules or Convoy Raid type rules were ever considered, either during the development or playtesting phase. I suppose they may have been considered too complex by either WOTC or Mr. Harris, but I do feel this is the one thing that the game is really missing.