Posts made by nhgrif

@simon33:

With Q5, in the event that Britain still attacks, whether or not Britain provides forces to attempt to clear SZ95 the American transports are not destroyed even if there are extra hits left over, but the assault does not proceed. There needs to be an actual scramble to stop the assault - this is important if you want the plane to do something else, like scrambling to SZ97 or intercepting.

So in this case, if Southern Italy were defended by nothing but a single fighter and the allies had 1 transport in SZ95 and 1 transport in SZ97, Italy would have to decide between 3 options:

1. Scramble to SZ95, letting Southern Italy get captured by the British troops invading from SZ97 (and the fighter could land in Northern Italy)
2. Scramble to SZ97, letting Southern Italy get captured by the British troops invading from SZ95 (and the fighter could land in Northern Italy)
3. Defend the land battle and hope 1 fighter can kill whatever is loaded on the two transports.

So, if the U.S. transport were loaded with ANZAC or French (lol) units and Italy purchased and deployed a boat in that sea zone, then the ANZAC units could not conduct the amphibious assault even without Italy scrambling due to ANZAC not being able to clear the boats from the sea zone, correct?

Looking for a few clarifications with regards to using an allied nations transports.

Question 1: On America Turn N, America moved loaded transports from SZ91 to SZ110 and conducted an amphibious assault on Normandy, leaving empty transports in SZ110 at the end of its turn.  How quickly can Great Britain get its ground units to Normandy via the American transports?

My current understanding is that British troops can be loaded on Great Britain Turn N, and subsequently unloaded on Great Britain Turn N+1, requiring America to leave the transports where Britain wants to unload from on America’s Turn N+1.

Question 2: This question is about your own troops on your own transports, but I want to be sure to clarify something before question 3.  A nation moves transports with no friendly warships into a completely empty sea zone with intentions of conducting an amphibious assault.  The enemy nation has a territory with an airbase touching this sea zone.  Is the enemy able to scramble planes to attempt killing the transport?  Question 3: Does it matter if the amphibious assault is targeting the territory holding the airbase or not?

I hope the answer to Question 2 is yes (and question 3 is no).  My current understanding is that it is, but more importantly my group has been playing with the rules this way for a little while and I hope we’ve been right all this time.

Question 4: This is the question where I’m most unsure.  America has some number of transports sitting in SZ91.  They are loaded with British troops.  On America’s turn these transports move to SZ95.  Is Great Britain able to unload its troops from America’s transports into an enemy territory (Northern or Southern Italy) in order to attack it?  Question 5: Assuming they can, are any Italian planes allowed to scramble?

I’m not sure how I feel about Question 5 in particular.  It seems like the answer to Question 4 is probably yes, but I may be surprised.  However, it seems weird to allow a situation where a British action on Britain’s turn could result in American units dying on Britain’s turn.  Granted, if there are any planes or boats in range of SZ95 on Italy or Germany’s turns, the transports effectively die for free then anyway, but there’s quite a big difference between them dying before or after their cargo has had a chance to unload and potentially take a territory.

And as a more general question…

If a fighter from Scotland scrambles into 109, I believe it can land in United Kingdom if Scotland is captured.  However, if Scotland is not captured, could the fighter which scrambled from Scotland into SZ109 still choose to land in the United Kingdom?

Similiar-ish to above:

Germany has two transports starting from sea zone 112.  They each load ground units.  One moves to SZ 111 and the other to SZ 119.  UK has just 1 fighter in Scotland, which it scrambles.  Ireland is still neutral.

In this scenario, I assume the following:

1. The fighter chooses exactly one sea zone to scramble into.

2. The fighter destroys the transport in that sea zone.

3. The other transport drops off its land units in Scotland and captures it (wins combat against 0 defenders).

4. At the end of combat, the UK fighter is destroyed.  Only Scotland borders SZ111 and that has just been captured by Germany.  Scotland and Ireland border SZ119, but the fighter can’t land in either of those squares.

5. As an additional assumption, if Germany also deployed to SZ109, the fighter from Scotland could scramble into 109, and then even if Scotland is captured, the UK fighter could land in London.

America has a fighter and air base on Guam. Japan sends one transport with one infantry and one artillery into the surrounding sea zone to conduct an amphibious assault. A Japanese fighter joins them.

1. Am I correct that during the combat move phase Japan must declare whether the fighter is staying in the sea zone to defend a possible scramble or joining the land battle in Guam?

2. Am I correct that America can scramble to defend against the amphibious assault despite there being no sea battle in the zone?

3. If there were not an amphibious assault, would America still be able to scramble?

4. If my first two assumptions are correct, what happens in the scenario in which Japan commits its plane to the land battle and America scrambles? My assumption is the transport and it’s cargo are destroyed for free, the Japanese fighter conducts land battle against no defending units and wins, the territory is not captured due to Japan having no available land units. At the end of combat, America’s scrambled fighter freely lands back on Guam, and the Japanese plane must find a place to land.

The question and the first post have a slight incongruency.  The real question for the scenario in your first post is probably something more like…. is it wise for the allies to go all-in in the Pacific, only to lose the game in Europe?

The main advantage I see to the allies breaking the the lend lease to land in Russia in the Pacific side is the distance between Hawaii/Guam/Philippines and Russia.  American bombers can be produced one turn, in Hawaii the next turn, and then fighting in SZ6 and landing in Russia the next turn.  Without landing in Russia, those bombers would have to wait one additional turn to rebase to Guam, so they can take off from Guam, fight in SZ6, then go land back in Guam.  But once in Guam, all they can do is fight in SZ6 again next turn.  American bombers in Amur, Siberia, or Soviet Far East could start doing strategic bombing raids on Tokyo.

Additionally, using Guam as a base allows British & ANZAC fighters & tactical bombers to rebase to Guam, then go fight in SZ6 followed by landing in Russia.  America doesn’t need to use this tactic so much because they are likely to bringing carriers, allowing their small planes to mostly land wherever, however ANZAC & UKPac are unlikely to be burning money on carriers, so being able to land planes in Russia can be useful for attacks on the Japanese navy in SZ6 or even on Japanese land units in Korea.

Consider the case where Japan has left SZ6 particularly exposed, but Tokyo itself is pretty well defended with plenty of AA, and infantry, making a mainland attack not really an option… but Japan overlooked defending Korea so heavily.  America’s navy doesn’t like its odds against what DOES exist of the Japanese navy in SZ6.  They’re in America’s favor, but America would have to risk transports ready to capture Korea.  But America has 3 strategic bombers in Hawaii that could really swing the advantage in America’s favor.  They can’t land in Korea because America will just be capturing it this turn, so Russia gives America permission.  With the help of the strategic bombers, which will ultimately land in Russia, America wipes out Japan’s SZ6 navy (barely… nothing is left of either navy in the sea zone) and captures Korea.  On ANZAC’s turn, they fly 3 fighters from Guam to Korea.  On Russia’s turn, they move 6 infantry & 2 AA into Korea.  Is stuck and doesn’t have great options on their turn, and they’re particularly mad because they know on America’s next turn, Korea will have a mIC, naval base, and air base, and an American aircraft carrier with two fighters is in Hawaii ready to turn up in Korea to reinforce further.

… buuuuuut… if all this is happening while Moscow is falling, it’s not so great.  It doesn’t impact UK & ANZAC options.  ANZAC may still have built a strategic bomber or two somehow, and would like to base them in Russia in order to do regular bombing runs on Tokyo.  But if America is spending all of its money in the Pacific allowing Germany to steamroll through western Russia, then it is probably America’s purchase choices that lost the game, not Russia losing out on 5 ipc per turn.  5 ipc per turn isn’t going to make the difference between stopping Germany or not from taking Moscow if the allies aren’t helping you anyway.

And the German player can easily shut down that bonus anyway by simply parking a submarine in SZ125.  Germany should have cleared out the UK home fleet on turn 1, leaving UK with nothing in range for several turns (and probably more important things to do with its navy anyway).  The Soviet Union doesn’t have a destroyer, and purchasing a destroyer instead of almost 3 more infantry is probably losing for Russia anyway (you will be spending 8ipc to hopefully kill a sub to get a 5ipc bonus back…and your destroyer won’t do much else… Germany can just ignore it.  It only takes 2 turns after the sub is dead to pay off the destroyer, but you’ve gone one turn with 8ipc less worth of units that could defend Moscow).  The only way America is going out of their way to kill that sub is if they’re planning on taking Norway and building a factory there… which is an option… but then you’re winning the game because America has a European factory, not because Russia is getting 5 more ipc.  A lot of those America units are probably walking through Russia killing your bonus anyway.

Really though… Russia would probably like the UK to kill its bonus by lending some actual airplanes worth 10, 11, 12 ipc to help defend and possibly strafe good targets from Russia.

@weddingsinger:

IF your UK opponent does Taranto raid, there should be few fighters left on London to scramble, which means you can either sink it in sz109 or it has to limp back to Canada to be repaired and come back no sooner than UK5 to SZ109 or sz91 (Gibraltor)

Short of Germany capturing London on turn 1, why isn’t the British battleship healed from the naval base in London?  Or are we talking about the battleship in 111?

@Littorio:

I have yet to manage to keep it alive. It really only seems to me that it is an option if the UK scrambles their fighters as you would otherwise be leaving a UK battleship damaged, which in my opinion doesn�t seem like a good trade-off. Am I overlooking something?

Are we talking about turn 1?  Can you explain more fully what is happening on your turn 1?

I move the German battleship, as well as one of the Atlantic subs into 110, and supplement that with 3 fighters and 3 tactical bombers.  I always manage to sink the English ships.  It’s down to luck whether or not I have any surviving German ships, but I’ve always sunk the British fleet.

And by sinking the Royal Navy in sea zones 109, 110, and 111 using your five submarines, battleship, and air force, you’ve forced England into some hard decisions.  The destroyer/transport in Canada might be trying to take out two German submarines.  The Cruiser at Gibraltar has to decide between helping in the Mediterranean, or coming back home to attempt blocking some of Germany’s options with the cruiser & transport from the Baltic (and whatever Germany may have built on turn 1).  German boats sitting in SZ110 (the cruiser, transport from the Baltic and any new boats built) can reach London for a Sealion, Gibraltar/Morocco to really activate Italy, or Novgorod from either SZ115 or 127.  That could be a cruiser, fully loaded carrier, and 3 fully loaded transports showing up in either of those 3 theaters on Germany’s second turn.

@Gargantua:

This is one of those few Axis pieces that is of higher value to the Allies than it is to the Axis.

I don’t understand this comment.

@weddingsinger:

Are there any fighters still in London?  Did he buy 6 inf or 7 inf for London on UK1?  If he didn’t, and only has the French fighter still in London (so 2 available to defend, because only the fighter from Gibraltor can make it back), I’d do Sea lion.

There are fighters in London.

Of the three that started in London, the French fighter was killed in the English channel scramble, and the two UK fighters went to Taranto.
He rebased the Scottish fighter to London, and purchased a fighter on turn one. 
He also purchased 1 tank, and 5 infantry.  He also transported 2 infantry away from London, did not bring the Canadian units to London, and moved all the Scottish units south to London.

London has 7 infantry, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 5 AAA.

@weddingsinger:

Rule of thumb: if UK brings both fighters down from London, never scramble.  I’d only scramble for sure if they didn’t bring either fighter and I had 3 fighters available to scramble.

I will keep this in mind.

@weddingsinger:

I’m curious if you have the ability to sink the UK transports off Gibraltor.  As Germany I’d really want to do that.  Including if I had to sacrifice Italy’s transport to take Algeria or Morocco as a safe landing spot for the Germans (though I don’t think it would be based on what you’re saying).  If I had a sub to pair with 1 bomber I might do it, knowing I’ll lose both IF I wanted to do Sea Lion.

This is what I actually did and it didn’t work out so great.  Italy took 1 cruiser and 2 transports to Gibraltar.  Dice were not with me.  Killed the two ground units, but lost all four of my units to the UK fighter.

I didn’t quite do Sealion.  I dropped off some units and prepared a second round of pick-up drop-off for Sealion the next turn.  A few German ships went down to 91 and wiped out all of the UK boats.  At this point, I probably could/should have taken the three transports down with and dropped them off in Africa.

After the UK’s turn, here’s what the Mediterranean looks like:

SZ93 of course still has the French boats.
SZ97 Taranto was overwhelmingly successful for the Allies.  Italy scrambled both fighters, Germany scrambled a fighter.  United Kingdom brought two fighter and a strategic bomber from London as well as the fighter from Malta and everything from SZ98.  All of the Axis units were killed.  UK lost only a submarine and one plane.  UK is left with a cruiser, carrier, and two fighters in that sea zone.
SZ99 has 1 transport.  He dropped an infantry off in Greece.
Greece has 5 UK infantry.
SZ95 & 96 of course still have the starting Italian boats.
Germany attacked and retreated out of Yugoslavia leaving 1 neutral infantry defending Yugoslavia.  Southern France was not attacked by Germany, leaving the starting French units there.
There is a UK fighter in Gibraltar, along with one infantry and one mech infantry (transported down from London).
There is a UK infantry and tank in Morocco (transported from Canada).
There is one destroyer and two transports in SZ91 (one destroyer hit by the Germany submarine they had to kill in order to drop off troops down here).
Egypt is left with just the two ANZAC infantry.  Alexandria has the ground units from Alexandria+Egypt, minus the 1 infantry that went to Greece.
Tobruk has the starting Italian troops, of course, plus a German tactical bomber.

I think that’s a complete description of what is left in the Mediterranean (for a particular game I played recently).  Taranto roll went exceptionally well for UK, but lucky rolling aside:

• Should Italy/Germany scramble fighters to defend Taranto?  Or should they hope to do some damage with boats alone, then counter-attack?

Now, the answer to the above question changes what options Italy has on its turn slightly, and that can be addressed in coming discussion, but… where should Italy go from here?  Playing this, I felt I had a lot of options and a lot of potential targets, but none were super great, and if I took what I felt was an appropriate force into any of the battles, I felt I wouldn’t have been doing enough, or leaving something exposed.

The plan here was for Italy to can-open USSR for Germany.  HOWEVER, if we consider the UK’s movement and their purchase, should the Axis’s overall plan at this point have shifted over to a straight up Sealion?  UK lost the French fighter due to scrambling to defend against Germany taking out the Royal Navy. Its only planes in London are the Scotland plane and one it purchased.  It also purchased a tank and 4 infantry in London (and moved all the Scotland units down).  Leaving UK with 7 infantry, 1 tank, 2 fighters, and 5 AA.  Is UK exposed enough at this point for Germany to take London on G2 with 3 tanks, 3 infantry, two naval bombardments, and a pile of planes?

If switching into a real Sealion is the Axis’s best plan here, what does Italy need to do on its first turn here?

@Caesar:

as for the Japanese, they are not allowed two sea zones within US mainland.

Which exact sea zones are Japan actually allowed/restricted?

There are a lot of rules about submarines.  Let me make sure my reading of the rule book is correct.

For these scenarios, we are considering a sea zone with a single allied submarine in it.

Scenario: A sea zone is occupied by a single Allied submarine.  Various nearby Axis units would like to enter the sea zone.

Questions:

• Can Axis move a submarine into sea zone during the combat move turn?

• If it happens during the combat move turn, can the Axis submarine attack the Allied submarine without a destroyer present?

• If an Axis submarine alone ends its combat phase in the sea zone occupied by an Allied submarine, must it conduct combat (even if it is simply submerging in the first phase)?

• If the Axis submarine attacks the Allied submarine, can Allied warplanes could scramble if there were an eligible air base with eligible planes stationed at it?

• If the Axis submarine attacks the Allied submarine, can the Allied submarine simply choose to submerge rather than be involved in any combat at all?

• Can Axis move a submarine into the sea zone during the non-combat move turn?

• Can Axis move a transport into the sea zone and conduct an amphibious assault?

• If the Axis transport is conducting amphibious assault, can the allied submarine prevent it by itself?

• Can an Axis destroyer move through the sea zone as if it were unoccupied or non-hostile?

• If an Axis destroyer must stop on a sea zone occupied by a hostile submarine and conduct combat, must any Axis fleet (boats & cargo only, I think it’s clear that aircraft could avoid the combat, not that it would matter) traveling with the destroyer stop with it and take part in the combat?

• If an Axis destroyer is allowed to pass through the sea zone as if it were unoccupied/non-hostile, can an Axis destroyer move into the square during the Axis non-combat phase (and end its movement there)?

• Can an Axis fleet without a destroyer make a combat move into a sea zone occupied only by an allied submarine?  Would this initiate combat (which the submarine could opt out of, due to lack of destroyer)?

• If an Axis battleship and transport move into a sea zone with an Allied submarine to conduct an amphibious assault, does the submarine prevent the naval bombardment?  Does it matter if the submarine submerged at any point during the combat?  Does it matter if it submerged before any rolls were made?

• If the Allied submarine is in a sea zone marked as a Convoy zone next to Axis controlled territories, does the Allied submarine always get to roll for convoy damage, regardless of the presence of any amount of Axis ships of any kind in the same sea zone (even, for example, a destroyer deployed by the Axis player on that turn)?

Unrelated to submarines, the rule book says transports do not make a sea zone hostile and you can move through a sea zone with transports as though it were unoccupied.  Am I correct in understanding that if you move through the sea zone (not stopping there) OR if you move into that sea zone during non-combat, the transport is not destroyed?  In order to destroy the transport, an enemy warship must move into the square and stop during its combat move phase?

What are the rules for purchasing industrial complexes and deploying units?  Or… how quickly can the U.S. get scary…?

Turn X, U.S. captures Norway (I think that’s got an IPC value of 3, right?)

Option 1: U.S. can build a factory on Turn X.  U.S. can deploy to that factory on Turn X. (this seems definitely wrong)
Option 2: U.S. can build a factory on Turn X.  U.S. can deploy to that factory on Turn X+1.
Option 3: U.S. can build a factory on Turn X+1.  U.S. can deploy to that factory on Turn X+1.
Option 4: U.S. can build a factory on Turn X+1.  U.S. can deploy to that factory on Turn X+2.

Which is the correct interpretation of the rules?  It seems like it’s probably option 3 or option 4.

To be clear with regards to Mongolia…

Whether Russia DOW on Japan or Japan DOW on Russia is irrelevant.
Japanese forces attacking a Chinese controlled territory bordering Mongolia (on the south side) reinforced with Russian troops will not trigger Mongolia in either direction.
Russian forces attacking Japan in any territory not bordering Mongolia (and not Korea) won’t trigger Mongolia in either direction.

Correct?

Do submarines prevent the Soviet Union’s National Objective tied to SZ125?
Do transports prevent the Soviet Union’s National Objective tied to SZ125?

Do submarines prevent Italy’s national objective tied to the Mediterranean?
Do transports prevent Italy’s national objective tied to the Mediterranean?

G1: Germany has moved 4 of its Atlantic submarines to SZ109 to attack the UK destroyer and transport.  UK has scrambled 1 fighter from Scotland, 2 fighters from London.  France has scrambled 1 fighter from London.

Are the following assumptions correct?

The German submarines will not use their surprise strike ability because of the presence of an opposing destroyer.
The Allied fighters will be able to attack the German submarines due to the presence of a friendly destroyer.
The German submarines will not be able to hit the allied fighters due to being submarines.
The German submarines can retreat without killing the destroyer.
The German submarines can not submerge and remain in SZ109 without killing the destroyer.
The German submarines first hit must be applied to the UK destroyer.
The German submarines must roll at least 2 total hits across any number of combat rounds before the transport is destroyed (the transport is not killed automatically just because the destroyer was killed).
If the German submarines destroy the UK destroyer, the defenders all roll their defensive roll for that combat round as if the destroyer were still there (for example, the fighters can still hit the submarines).
If the German submarines destroy the UK destroyer and the UK transport, combat is effectively done as neither side can hit any targets on the other side.

And did we conduct this combat correctly…

4 German submarines scored 3 hits.  UK destroyer and transport selected as casualty.  No remaining valid casualties.
UK rolls for destroyer and 3 fighters, France rolls for 1 fighter.  Scored 1 hit.  One German submarine is destroyed.
Combat is over, fighters return to the territories they scrambled from, UK destroyer, UK transport, German sub removed, 3 German subs left in SZ109.

Similiar-ish to the above question:

What is supposed to happen when one faction produces a ship in a sea zone with an enemy warship in the zone?

For example, Germany has a submarine off the coast of London in SZ109.  UK produces a destroyer.  No combat happen’s on UK’s turn as the ship is deployed after the conduct combat phase.  Assuming no other ally player takes out the German submarine before Germany’s turn and no other axis player takes out the British destroyer before Germany’s turn, what happens during Germany’s combat move phase and conduct combat phase?

Can the German player move the submarine out of SZ109?  Must it move to attack, or can it move to an open sea zone (or one containing only other axis ships)?  If it does not move, is combat rolled between the submarine (and any reinforcements Germany moved in) and the destroyer (and any planes UK wants to scramble) at that point in time?

G1: Germany’s Cruiser/Transport in SZ114 remain unmoved.  Germany’s Battleship in SZ113 remains unmoved.  Germany purchases and deploys an Aircraft carrier and transport in SZ113.  Germany does not declare war on USSR.
R1: Soviet Cruiser/Submarine in SZ115 move to SZ114.

What happens when/if Germany declares war on the Soviet Union if the boats in these sea zones remain unchanged between now and then?

Can the German transport in SZ114 load units and move to SZ115?  Can the cruiser in SZ114 move with the transport and conduct naval bombardment?  Or must these boats conduct battle with the Soviet cruiser/sub in SZ114?  Can either German ship move to either SZ113 or SZ115 on the same turn they declared war on the USSR?

And I assume that no German ships in SZ113 can make it to SZ115 on the same turn that Germany declared war on USSR, except in the case that the Soviet ships in SZ114 were destroyed during the combat phase, and German ships left in SZ113 that did not move during the combat phase (or take part in the battle in SZ114, in the case of the cruiser starting there) would be able to move from 113 to 115 during the non-combat move phase?