I know but:
1. People won’t recognize the thread that easy…
2. It is easier to ask…
3. Helps me build post count in an honest helpful way… 8-)
Ok, basically, can transports unload troops for an assault on the same turn that you destroyed the navy around that island?
In my first game (still under way…) my friend as the US dropped a AA gun on midway and also dropped some planes there as well (why, no reason…just cause he didnt see a threat…)
Then Japan decided to strike the massive navy he had around midway then drop some infantry in midway with fighter support to take out the bombers stationed there.
Is this a legal move?
Shouldnt the battle around midway have to take place one turn before the invasion of the island?
If not, then how come I cant take a landlocked territory and then blitz through with some tanks and air support to hit the next?
My friend (the only one who has played the game before…) says that you CAN take the sea territory then rush assault the island in the same turn, but that you cant take a land territory, blitz through with tanks and take an adjecent territory.
These two acts are exactly the same, just involving different units. In one your waging a battle, bringing in transports and dropping off troops. In the other your waging a battle, bringing in tanks and attacking with them.
My friend argues that its because all of this is done at once and that the transport unloads during the combat. However, couldnt it be said that the tanks had already planned on rushing through the battle to blitz the next territory? If transports are allowed to drop off troops and attack an island after the naval battle, why arent tanks granted the same privalege on land?
Tanks could be used the same way, make them vaulnerable during the initial fight, but not able to fight back. It doesnt seem fair that its one way but not the other. And it especially doesnt seem fair that my friend didnt tell us about this rule before it came back and bit us in the ass.
We stopped the game before this act to find out which way was right. Because if the transports are allowed to drop off its forces then the allies basically lost because 3 bombers and a fighter will be destroyed. However, I could have destroyed a similar force with my tanks but was told I could not because they couldnt go through a conquered territory until next turn.
Just doesnt seem fair…
whats the official rules? we couldnt find anything about transports unloading after the coastal territory was won.
In 2:nd edition of the rules your answer about the tanks are on page 13 and amphibious assault with naval battle is illustrated on page 30.
You can download in PDF format the rules at:
Well, nobody says the rules are completely fair and you are welcome to play by your own house rules.
In this case the official rules are that, yes the transports unload to do amphibious assault right after the sea battle, and no the armors cannot blitz through an enemy occupied territory. The difference is that the transports are not in the disputed sea zone to do battle (they have no attacking ability) but solely to unload their troops, while you cannot hold back your armors from attacking in a battle.
I can see your point and holding back the armors to blitz after the battle makes an interesting rule variant. Like you said, make the armors that are used for blitzing vulnerable in the first battle. If you win the first battle, then the remaining blitzing armors must fight a least 1 round of the second battle. After that they can choose to retreat back to the first battleground. If you retreat from or lose the first battle, then the remaining blitzing armors must retreat as well. I think this variant makes the armor a much more valuable attacking unit. The attacker can now decide whether to go all out in one battle or take a chance to grab an extra territory. The defender must now defend a greater area. The armors now have better ability to outflank your opponent.
You can also make a case for holding back battleships in the sea zone battle to do bombardment. Of course everyone has to agree to these variants before you play.
It really doesn’t make a difference because whether its combat or noncombat move, all units use up their entire move in the process of loading & unloading on TRs. The ARM can’t “blitz” because by embarking, sailing across water, and then landing uses all their move & they have no movement left with which to blitz or do anything…
This rule makes sense because without it, an ARM could gain extra movement out of all proportion to its normal capability! If what you are describing were the case, an ARM could load onto a TR, move up to 2 SZs THEN move up to 2 MORE land territories before having to stop–you could make it almost halfway across the board in a single move! Also, one could then argue that if ARM can move 2 territories AFTER the transport-drop, why not BEFORE as well? That way by using a TR as a “bridge” of sorts, an ARM could TRIPLE its normal movement capability–ridiculous.
Also logically speaking, it’d be all a large unit could do to load onto a ship, sail into the ocean & land under hostile fire to take the territory. There’s no way a unit could land under direct fire from a hostile enemy, after who knows how many days at sea & just sit around doing nothing until the battle around them was over so they could make a dash into the interior.
As far as the seaborne invasion following an adjacent naval battle–while the naval battle has to be resolved before the amphibious assault (to make sure the entire amphibious army can actually land there), both may occur on the same Combat phase: they are just resolved consecutively. However you may WANT to wait to invade a territory until the following turn so that you can use your attacking BBs in a bombardment attack in support of the invasion. If both the naval battle & the amphibious assault take place on the same turn, the BBs cannot help in the land battle.
The exception is if there is a land territory (like Algieria or Norway for example) that is adjacent to more than one SZ. In this case, a naval battle could take place in one SZ–where the BBs couldn’t bombard, while another BB (or BBs) with additional TRs could attack from a second (unoccupied SZ)–and get their bombard 'cuz they weren’t involved in a naval battle. The amphibious land battle would take place as one battle however.
My brain hurts!
Your friend is right, but I can see your point. Remember though that if you sink his transports they take their cargo to the bottom of the sea with them.
Giving tanks that capability would make them more valuable. It might even turn the tables in the game because the axis could expand at an alarming rate.
Ozone, he was talking about blitzing through territory on land. For example, Germany has a bunch of infantry, tanks, and planes in EE. They take the Ukraine with the infantry and planes and then the tanks blitz through on the same combat move with the tanks to attack Caucus.
I think it would be a realistic rule, but only if the 2nd territory was completely empty and the tanks could only partake as attack units with zero strength in the first territory.
But C_F, if you allow that you are screwing around with one of the most basic rules in the game: the sequence of phases in a player’s turn.
You can’t take Ukraine (for instance) & THEN blitz through it to attack Caucases because the “taking” of a territory occurs during the Combat Phase of your turn. Once Combat Phase begins, all attack moves are over, because those occur on Combat Movement.
Not to mention that the move you describe would not be a “blitz” because you have already taken the territory. A “blitz” occurs only when the 1st territory an ARM enters is enemy-controlled, but not enemy-occupied–that is, the enemy controls it, but has no units (well, maybe an AA gun) there. Since in the above example, you already own Ukraine, there can be no “blitz” through there–you are “blitzing” your OWN TERRITORY. This is assuming that your house rules are that players can Combat Move, go to Combat Phase, fight, win, & then go back to Combat Move again however they wish. I don’t think I’d want to play by those rules, except maybe as a lark…
Yeah, it would totally screw with the game, but sometimes that is fun. There is always room for improvement and you never know where you might find it.
There are adjustments, then there is totally changing the game. Besides, what’s the point of making up a wild set of rules, playing that set of rules and getting good at it…… only to find nobody wants to play that way?
I’ve found that making even what you think are subtle changes can make a huge difference. Maybe it’s just me but even after all these years, each game takes on a life of it’s own after the first 2-3 rounds and often sooner.