must scramblers land on the airbases they scramble from
I have another question. If you want to amphibious assault a territory that is only protected by subs, you may choose to ignore the subs as long as you bring warships correct? But what if the defender scrambles? Will the subs then take part in the naval battle?
Thanks canuck, great work!
I think you forgot to include the top image with the mediafire link though…
Thanks krieg, two more questions:
During an amphibious assault, you can’t retreat land units back on the transports (if I remember correctly). But can you still retreat planes (leaving the land units behind)?
If you combine an amphibious assault with a normal attack on the same territory, can you then retreat all land units to the territory the normal attack came from?
In a game I’m playing I built an italian minor in Iraq. My opponent attacked Iraq with Russia and then took it with uk. I took it back with Italy but managed to loose it again to 1 French inf attacking from Syria. My friend now claims that Russia (for some reason) should get the ipcs from Iraq and use the factory there since Paris is under axis control and it’s “unfair” that nobody gets the money or the use of the factory.
I say that France gets the ipcs if and when Paris is liberated. Please tell me I’m right for once?
In a game I played the other day I was germany and had a sub in sz 91 off the coast of morocco. My friend, who was uk, claimed that he could move an unescorted transport from sz 106 and unload at morocco (still french).
The alpha +3 rules says:
Transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.
I told him that I couldn’t believe that it would make a difference if his transports was unloading troops to a hostile or friendly territory but gave him the bennefit of the doubt.
So, which one of us is correct?