@aardvarkpepper I think we’re talking about LH/3.0 setup with the 2-bomber india strat.

@Panther great thnx!

@PrivateerPuffin

In case the attacking transport survives, it can retreat. Every sea unit participates in the preceeding sea-battle.

@The-Mink

Hi Mink

It’s a puzzle and even when you figure it out, the dice says otherwise :)

I’d suggest giving Anniversary and Global a try when you get time.

@Wizard well the link is close to the first page, are you looking for Barons version? let me know

@The-Mink

Panther is right, but I’ll offer one more clarification. Your allies can help you defend, but not attack. Destroyers belonging to your ally don’t participate in your attacks, so they can’t help your air units hit subs even if they’re in the same sea zone.

When defending, they do participate, so a UK destroyer can help US planes hit subs if they’re defending the same sea zone.

@Panther

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks again to @Krieghund too. :)

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).

Yes.

An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@barnee @vodot
LOL I am honestly not surprised. I am a terrible speller.

@vodot Yeah, definitely seems like the US would need some kind of economic boost if they have a split economy. I bet playing like this would be more historically accurate and more fun, especially with more than 2 players.

@Faramir said in Transport vs Sub:

Can a transport make an amphibious assault where there is an enemy submarine if an air unit escorts the transport?

No, as an air unit is not a “warship belonging to the attacking power”.

Rulebook, page 13:

“However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing one or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least one warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”

@chickenwire said in Aircraft Landing After Carrier Destroyed Question:

Welcome to the forum.

For your scenario only this quote is relevant for defending Japan, as the other quotes address the active player (whose turn it currently is):

“A fighter based on a defending carrier must land on the same carrier if possible after the battle. If that carrier is destroyed in combat, it must try to land elsewhere. It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory, island, or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs during the Noncombat Move phase, before the acting player makes any noncombat movements.”

Now the Japanese fighters (on US NCM phase) can move to an at that time friendly territory/island.

@Panther Thanks!