One more Allied gambit comes to mind. No idea who had the original idea, but I’m calling it…

The Berlin Bank Job

Moves: US takes Denmark. UK transits Danish Straits to capture Germany.

Plan: The Allies take advantage of a German player who leaves Denmark and Germany lightly (or un-) defended. In a one-two punch, the US captures Denmark, opening the door for the UK to sail into the Baltic and amphibious assault into Germany, capturing Berlin and stealing Germany’s money. Executed at the right time, this move can almost single-handedly save Moscow by preventing Germany from purchasing new units for at least one turn. Also, the UK gets a huge one-time income boost.

Problems: In order to keep the German player from becoming alarmed and reinforcing Denmark and Germany, the Allies can’t have a huge troop buildup in advance of the operation. This means that minimal force must be used, which means that those units committed to Denmark and Germany are essentially on a suicide mission. This includes any British naval units which enter the Baltic, as they’ll be trapped there until Denmark is again liberated or they’re killed by the Luftwaffe, whichever comes first.

@Panther said in The Sneaky Carl:

This means that in the situation in question, units leaving the sea zone in combat movement to avoid participation in the attack can actually end their movement in friendly zones, so transports that are leaving don’t have to participate in an amphibious assault.

Just to clarify, does this mean that:

A) Transports can load, leave the sea zone in combat movement to avoid participation in the attack, end their movement in a friendly sea zone and offload. B) Transports leaving a sea zone in combat movement to avoid participation in the attack cannot load.
C) Transports leaving a sea zone in combat movement to avoid participation in the attack may load first, but may only offload in an amphibious assault.
D) Another possible scenario I’ve overlooked?

Technology should absolutely be a key element of G40. To make it so, however, you have to come up with a system allowing for targeted R&D, rather than the random, hit-or-miss OOB system. Without targeted R&D, you’re just wasting IPC.

You can also see this table in a couple of General Hand Grenade’s videos. Here’s the latest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_EhZXv11Hs

@taamvan

I respect your opinion, as well. I also agree that, if the transport can’t retreat to a friendly territory, they’re done for. If they can reach a friendly territory, though, I think the same principle as the “one space and land” rule for aircraft from sunken carriers should apply.

Since the current rules don’t allow for that, I really don’t see why transports are even allowed to retreat from a failed sea battle. The odds of protecting them before the next enemy turn are so slim, retreat seems a pointless exercise (as in my example above).

As you said, you like it the way it is…and I like my new house rule for retreating transports. We both win.

@taamvan said in Transports retreat...then what?:

@The-Pripet-Martian

The logic is that you have begun a multipart contingent attack–one that requires clearing the SZ first, having already committed the transports. This is one of the most nuanced situations in the rules–that you have to make sure that you bring enough to guarantee the first battle is a success if you fail to do so–most of your protective units will be dead, and the transports exceptionally vulnerable.

I understand what you’re saying. Logically, however, a failure to clear the sea zone of enemy warships or aircraft would result in the now-unprotected transports turning around, heading back to port and offloading their cargo, not moving one sea zone away to await their wholesale slaughter on the next enemy turn. If that’s the case, why even allow transports to retreat? Allowing them to move one space - easy striking distance for the remaining enemy forces - only delays the inevitable.

The rules-reason you cant unload is that a unit cannot both Combat Move and Noncombat move.

Aircraft do it all the time. If the only reason a transport cannot offload into a friendly territory is because it arrived there after retreating from battle, well…that’s not good enough. I accept that it’s the rule; I’m just saying that it’s an arbitrary rule, not grounded in logic or reality.
…

For those interested, here’s the scenario that started this topic:

ANZAC amphibious assault on Java. SZ 42 battle involved the following:

JPN: 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter
ANZ: 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 2 Fighters, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber (plus 2 Transports, 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery)

Round 1: ANZ = 1 hit, JPN = 3 hits
Round 2: ANZ = 2 hits, JPN = 3 hits

Japanese fighter remains, lands on Java. ANZAC Transports retreat to SZ 55 and, forbidden (by an arbitrary rule) from unloading into the friendly Northern Territory, await their destruction on the next Japanese turn.

Okay, I just found the relevant quote under “Phase 4: Noncombat Move”, “Where Units Can Move” (Europe 1940 2nd ed., p.22):

Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved, offloaded, or were involved in combat during the Combat Move or Conduct Combat phase.

The rule seems clear - transports which retreat from combat cannot offload their cargo. Clarity aside, I fail to see any logic or acknowledgement of reality in this application of the rule. Applying the same logic to aircraft which retreat from battle would mean they could not land…which would also make no sense.

Here’s the situation: Defenders win sea battle prior to amphibious assault. Attacker retreats surviving transports. If they retreat to a sea zone adjacent to a friendly territory, can they offload their cargo?

A similar question from 2010 was answered with a blunt, “retreating transports cannot offload their cargo,” but I can’t find anything in the 1940 2nd ed. rules to back that up. If anyone here can provide chapter and verse, I’d really appreciate it - ANZAC lives hang in the balance!

@taamvan Good point. The defender would have to scramble two fighters to kill the carrier and transports.

@orodeh said in Aircraft carrier defense value vs. scrambling fighter:

Playing a game with my kids, I ran into a scenario where the rules are not well defined; I think.
Assume an aircraft carrier has launched its planes into an amphibious landing. Now, the defender scrambles a fighter against the landing fleeting. The combat value of the fighter is 4. But what is the combat value of the aircraft carrier?

Interpretation A: zero, because the aircraft carrier is attacking. It can take hits, but its combat value is zero.

Interpretation B: two. It is being attacked, and so, it should use its defense value.

So which is it? zero or two?

It seems to me that, in this scenario, the “defenseless transports” rule would apply to the aircraft carrier. Quite a price to pay for a failed amphibious assault. As @Caesar-Seriona said, always send an escort with your carrier.