Posts made by Sankt Hallvard

1. All movement during combat phase must involve some sort of combat. For your trns this means they must either partake in a naval battle or offload to enemy territory. If they pick up and deliver to friendly territory this is a non-combat move and must be done in NCM phase. Same applies for subs and acs.

2. When you offload, both the units that disembark and the trn are considered to have completed their moves and can move no further, no blitz etc. Makes no difference whether the territory is friendly or hostile, occupied or vacant.

3. Your aircraft must land in any territory that was friendly at the beginning of your turn. It can also land on any friendly AC within reach.

@balungaloaf:

i take russian courses–-same way, what the hell is up with people.  Damn languages are confusing.

It’s the same with norwegian and german as well. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if english was the only language where nouns were NOT gender-related. I’ve stopped being amazed by how narrow-sighted americans are on these things. Gotta love your “World Series”…

:-D

@Jennifer:

Attack Borneo with 2 infantry
Attack New Guinea with 2 infantry

You are daring! Sounds like a great move if it works out, but this has the potential to backfire in a big way. You are 1:3 in each NOT to take the islands(2 inf vs 1), clearing the islands has little to no purpose - the objective is to capture. If you fail on both you have effectively lost Australia, NZ, Africa, India and the UK pacific fleet. All on UK1…

@ncscswitch:

If you had enough for a SUB, put it in SZ8, and THEN do the attack on SZ2 :-D

Nix just did this bid and move against me in a game in the games forum. We’re at R4 now and no German navy left anywhere. Allied fleets in sz3, sz12 and sz16. He certainly wiped out my UK fleet on G1 but where we are now I can’t tell if it made such a large speed bump as you’d think.

Jen and Rommel are right. Subs can be attacked by air but can submerge at the end of each combat round. If they choose to submerge they will stay submerged till the end of non-combat movement phase, in which they will re-surface. Meaning german subs can be first hit by british planes and then later american ones.

2 BBs(48)
2 ACs(32)
1 dst(12)
4 figs(20+free)
4 trns(free)
4 subs(32)

=144, saving 6 for a rainy day

Attacking and defensive power is less than in DMs suggestions so for the all out navy vs navy fights this isn’t optimal. I hate to be a tight-ass but what kind of navy is “better” really depends on what you are up against and what you want to achieve. I’d try to make the best use of my fleet in terms of aquiring IPCs or strategic advantages so I favor the BBs and fewer subs.

@Jennifer:

Wiat a minute, by how I’m reading your replies, Switch, you are saying that allied units cannot be used to defend against an attack?

Am I just misreading you?  Because standard practice is to land your fighters on allied ships, or move your fleet with your ally for a joined defense force.  If that’s not the rule, I’m gunna start getting really wicked with Germany declaring I am only attacking British ships, not Russian, American and British. :evil:

I think you’re misreading him. In any case you’re picking up on an old thread from February. I’m sure that’s not how he sees it today. :-P

Yes, you can move it out of the zone during combat phase. If you don’t move it you will have to conduct combat.

Answer is “no” on both your questions. A bomber can only participate in one combat per round, so just one SBR run or one attack(land or sea)

I don’t know why it’s “popular”, though. Using a statistical/mathematical approach and LHTR rules SBR bombing does not pay off. You lose more buying the bombers than you gain by bombing. (Considering the AA gun present of course)

Some people probably rely on luck to win their games and some just don’t realise it’s not a good move. Circumstances where it could be a good move might be for a short-term objective where the bomber has no better use. For example bombing Berlin or Moscow a few rounds prior to a big attack. Or knowing that your opponent needs an exact amount for a specific purchase trying to inflict enough damage to make him have to forego the purchase.

@ncscswitch:

To be successful, you would have to be able to maintain your navy without fear of Japan cutting your supply lines, and land forces in mass every turn sufficient to prevent Japan land based counter-attacks, and maintain that level of naval and land control for 4 consecutive turns (from the initial insertion) to reach Moscow.  Japan simply is not going to sit idly by while the US attempts that.

You assume that the US troops are headed for Moscow, that’s not necessary. If US can keep Japan fully occupied by having to constantly repel US landings in SFE/Bury and pump up their fleet the main goal is reached. This by itself accomplishes nothing, it mainly just stops Japan from taking India and Sinkiang, they might even be unable to hold onto India/FIC and China. I think it all comes down to a delicate balance, and the one that starts lagging will ultimately lose the battle and with that most likely the entire war.

I think the key thing is that it opens up for a british fleet to sail freely in the pacific. They can even without new elements to the region take several Jap islands by using troops from India/Egypt area and Australia. The initial US atlantic fleet should be enough to repel or keep Germany busy in Africa, while UK can concentrate on Norway/Karelia.

Without the UK fleet Japan will ultimately establish a foothold in Bury that US can no longer threaten, but in the right circumstances Japans income will decrease due to the lost islands, and US will instead outbuild Japan - or put the extra funds into the Atlantic. What this does is buy the allies time, so it’s only a choice when the allies are making notably more IPCs than the axis. You will have a Germany in good condition, but a limp Japan. You will have US troops in Bury/SFE that can withdraw to Moscow when time comes, a pacific fleet that can be redirected to protect islands, an atlantic fleet than can start putting serious pressure on Germany. A british build-up of troops in Norway/Karelia and a Russia in pretty good shape who has only had to worry about Germany for several turns, and probably several more while Japan starts from “scratch”.

Call it an aggressive “SJF” (slow japan first, as Switch introduced), but still having your mind set at actually killing Germany first.

But ultimately it’s an advanced and fragile tactic the way I see it.

@ShadowHAwk:

Eh but 2 does not state it has to be a combat move. And since submarines threat hostile seazones as friendly the zone is effectively not a hostile zone and number 3 allows the movement. I would say Yes to question 3 based on this. Moving through a friendly seazone is not considered a combat move and the SZ not containing destroyers is effectively a friendly seazone for a sub.

Well, I’d be willing to advocate both views. As I quoted submarines treat hostile sea zones as friendly, but that statement is under “combat movement phase”. Looking under “ncm phase” this is not repeated, in fact, it states that NO sea units may move through hostile sea zones EXCEPT in the case of enemy submerged submarines.

Might be worth looking more into, but I assume mostly for theoretical interest.

@Jennifer:

And I understand WHY they made it a rule, I’m just thinking it would be better to use them more like carriers.  I just don’t know how I’d work it so it wouldn’t be over powered.

Well, try to use this picture:

The US trns shuttled 4 inf, 4 arm from uk to w.europe the previous turn. After dropping off their cargo they’re making their way back across the channel to “port of England”. At UKs turn these trns are in port and can be loaded with british troops, however, they’re refueling and waiting for new combat orders. If the british decide to disembark the same turn they’d fall off the pier and drown. It’s is first when it’s the US’ turn the ships can be moved(treat bridging as a “move” and it becomes evident) over the channel and be unloaded.

@jsp4563:

ok, I’m convinced was the “(or not)” actually in the rules or did you add that?

Heh, no. That’s also part of LHTR, I wouldn’t go about adding my own additions to something I quote.  :-)

Seeing as “no” and “definite no” isn’t enough to convince you, I’ll quote LHTR.  :-P

Transporting Multinational Forces: Transports belong to a friendly power can load and offload your land units. This is a three-step process.
1. You load your land units aboard the friendly transport on your turn.
2. The transport’s controller moves it (or not) on that player’s turn.
3. You offload your land units on your next turn.

@jsp4563:

That’s the question, since you are loading and offloading on the same turn without the transport moving it’s one of those grey areas.

It’s a definite “no” then, and you can use the same exerpts given by ToySoldier above - only he probably misunderstood your question.

I guess the answer should be “No” then, if by bridging you mean moving from one territory to another in the same turn.

In response to…? What is your goal? Invade Norway or W.Eu UK1?

It can turn into a mean arms race and the one who starts lagging will probably lose the entire game due to it. Build ships, send them to Alaska, ferry troops over while constantly adding new elements to the fleet. Japan will have to consolidate outside Japan to prevent an invasion and stop the loss of the fleet. Only staging point possible then is Buryatia. If the bury stack is always kept in check by the US it’s a working strategy as Japan will not be doing much else. But the only point in doing it would be if UK still has a working pacific fleet and can slowly take Japan’s islands and help Russia keep Germany in check.

The strategy seems sub-optimal and somewhat situational to me, but it could well deserve some more playtesting. I dislike the idea of a straight “KGF” or “KJF” anyway.

In what way is the league different from the now yearly tournament? PBEM? Not posting here anymore?