I’ll try this out… sounds like fun

actually, subs always fire in opening steps of a sea combat with or without presence of a destroyer.

An attacking destroyer makes it so that the subs roll (if it hits) makes the casualty when all other casualties are done.

Example of Battle: 1 destroyer and 2 subs attack a sub and two transports.  Both sides fires the subs first, all of them hit (hypothetically) so the defender loses both tansports that don’t get return fire, attacker chooses the destroyer (hypothetically) but the destroyer still gets to fire.

A bit complicated but that is my understanding

Where are the low luck rules?

…you send two fighters to attack a single transport and the transport dies but so do your two fighters.
…you are short of building something by one IPC.

Please comment with your own experience

Do you try for developments?  If so, which ones?  Please give your reason for “yes” or “no”.

I usually try for developments at times.  I usually try for LRA for USA because it’s much easier to take Japan’s sea vessels from a far away distance.  I usually don’t try for any other development.  But developments are the last thing I think about when I’m contemplating what to spend my money on.

Ok, new idea (trying to get back on topic’s title)

Why can’t battleships do more than one turn of bombardments?  Originally, my two friends and I have played that as long as the land troops in an amphibious assault survived and a second round of battle continues, the all BBs bombard again.

Has anyone played with this “houserule”?

I thought wikipedia was the one where you can edit it yourself.  I know of uncyclopedia.org - that site is freaking hilarious

@Bunnies:

@mrsoccerchessman:

Thanks for the history… though that’s from wikipedia

If it’s on internet, it must be true!

I BELIEVE!

Then you will believe everything thus making yourself contradict yourself.  For example, if somewhere online it said “Llamas are the best”  10 times out of 9 times there will be somewhere saying “Llamas are the worst”.  So, I can never trust you now

But who cares, wikipedia is wikipedia… it must be true

Is it worth trying the strategic bombing if the bomber(s) are not doing anything this turn?

Thanks for the history… though that’s from wikipedia