Thanks for the clarifacation. To sum up then, although the sub is a combat vessel, it cannot control an occupied sea zone on its own. A german destroyer in the water here, however, would need to be engaged as entering the sea zone would then be a combat move. Do I have this right?
Posts made by johnathanpb
RE: Subs vs unescorted transports, rule clarifacation???
Subs vs unescorted transports, rule clarifacation???
In the Alpha +1 set up, under rule changes, rule 12 states that subs no longer get a “sneak attack” against unescorted transports, and transports may unload, during a combat move (amphibious assault). What about during non-combat movement? If there are only german subs in a sea zone off the england coast, can the UK move its canadian transport into that sea zone and unload canadian units onto england despite the presence of the german subs? the UK conducted no combat in that sea zone, it was a non-combat move to reinforce the united kingdom, no combat vessel was present in this non-combat move? Is that allowed? can an enemy sub be completely ignored?
When is the US at war?
So, this may sound stupid given what I read in the rules, but how can Japan take any agressive action against any controlled island territory in the pacific and NOT trigger a state of war with the US? Invading any British / ANZAC controlled territories, including Dutch, sets off the powder keg. But I read multiple threads here suggesting that Japan can make such attacks w/o bringing the US into the conflict. Please clarify? Thx!