@Capt.:
Can someone clear this up for me?
It’s US3 and I have JPN bearing down on me with 2AC 4FIG and 2TRN with 3INF and 1ARM. I have no ground troops in WUS and it’s my turn to buy. I’m thinking 1DD and 6SS, no ground forces. His fleet/fighters would have to engage the DD, hostile seazone, in order to drop troops in WUS and my subs would be entered into the battle. Japan has no DD, will my subs stay engaged even after my DD is taken out? Can he sink the DD and then opt out of the sub-battle, landing his amphibious and taking WUS?
I’m trying to visualize this, because I drop a DD will he have to fight through my subs 2AC vs 6SS in order to land? Will I have 6@1 vs 2@1 and his loaded transports at risk?
Interesting situation. The attacker will have to destroy your DD for sure. Now since he has to attack your fleet he should not be able to ignore the SS. If some or all his planes are participating in naval combat they will only be able to sink the DD. His aircraft carriers will be left against the SS. Risky for him. Chance he would withdraw if he would attack at all ( I would not attack your coast myself with those odds).
Well now, that purchase protects WUS, HAW, ALA, SOL. Japan not only opts out of the WUS attack, he has to turn back entirely, no DD to reinforce!!
That’s hot!
It turns US3 into offense rather than say I bought 6INF 2ARM and 1FIG for WUS.
Thanks a lot!
@DY:
Seems to go against the idea of “risky” if you are guaranteeing the ftr has nowhere to land with 100% certainty.
That’s what “risky” is all about. You never know if the fighters will actually have a place to land when the smoke clears. All the rules require you to do is have places for all of your fighters to land in the event that you sustain no losses and pick up as many survivors as possible after combat ends. In other words, the risky mission rules apply only during the movement phases. During combat, it’s up to you where you apply hits. Whether the loss of the fighters at sea is worth it or not is part of the strategy.
@P@nther:
@Capt.:
I’m trying to visualize this, because I drop a DD will he have to fight through my subs 2AC vs 6SS in order to land? Will I have 6@1 vs 2@1 and his loaded transports at risk?
Yes, you are right. Subs can only be ignored during movement. And they can only be ignored when there are no surface warships with them. If your opponent decides to attack he attacks ALL your units (see top of page 5 of the FAQ).
HTH :-)
Yet another example of why it’s a good idea to always have destroyers in your fleets.
@Capt.:
Well now, that purchase protects WUS, HAW, ALA, SOL. Japan not only opts out of the WUS attack, he has to turn back entirely, no DD to reinforce!!
That’s hot!
It turns US3 into offense rather than say I bought 6INF 2ARM and 1FIG for WUS.
Thanks a lot!
This sounds eerily familiar… Are you sure you don’t want to just stick with a couple inf in WUS. I bet he’d just turn away… ;)
I have a question on attacking a seazone and having amphibious assault afterwards. If I attack a seazone with a cv, 2 ftrs, and dd and the defender chooses to lose the dd and CV, can I break off the attack with my attacking warships and conduct amphibious assault since there are no defending surface ships left?
The rulebook isn’t worded very well on this point, but my understanding is that sea combat must be complete (and won) before any amphibious assault can occur. If defending fighters remain in the sea zone, then the only options for the attacker are to 1) withdraw or 2) continue the sea battle. If the attacker withdraws, all units (including the amphibious force) must withdraw.
Perhaps an “official” clarification would be helpful.
No. You must clear the sea zone of all defending units before the amphibious units can land and attack. The only exception is if there are only subs and/or transports in the sea zone at the time that your ships enter it, in which case you can choose to ignore them and conduct the assault. However, if you choose to attack them, they also must be cleared in order for the assault to proceed.
Kreighund,
I think this would be good item to add to the FAQ’s for official clarification. The OOB rulebook speaks only of defending warships, and not aircraft. I understood what they meant, but I can see how someone else could interpret this section differently.
Thanks for the quick reply. I initially thought the same way as Ogre…only defending warships need to be cleared :oops:
Seems logical when you put it like that
No. You must clear the sea zone of all defending units before the amphibious units can land and attack. The only exception is if there are only subs and/or transports in the sea zone at the time that your ships enter it, in which case you can choose to ignore them and conduct the assault. However, if you choose to attack them, they also must be cleared in order for the assault to proceed.
Let’s suppose a DD and a loaded TR launch naval combat and amphibious assault against a defending DD & TR. If the two DDs knock each other out, leaving only the transports, does that mean the amphibious assault fails because the defending transport was not cleared? Seems a little rough if that’s the case :|
And would the attacking transport be forced to retreat or could it choose to remain in the same zone with the defending transport?
I think this would be good item to add to the FAQ’s for official clarification. The OOB rulebook speaks only of defending warships, and not aircraft. I understood what they meant, but I can see how someone else could interpret this section differently.
I think it is already covered by the FAQ. See top of page 5. It is said: “When you attack a sea zone you attack ALL of the enemy units in that sea zone.”
No. You must clear the sea zone of all defending units before the amphibious units can land and attack. The only exception is if there are only subs and/or transports in the sea zone at the time that your ships enter it, in which case you can choose to ignore them and conduct the assault. However, if you choose to attack them, they also must be cleared in order for the assault to proceed.
Let’s suppose a DD and a loaded TR launch naval combat and amphibious assault against a defending DD & TR. If the two DDs knock each other out, leaving only the transports, does that mean the amphibious assault fails because the defending transport was not cleared? Seems a little rough if that’s the case :|
And would the attacking transport be forced to retreat or could it choose to remain in the same zone with the defending transport?
Very interesting point, but I think this is covered by the OOB-rules: On page 31 it is said: “… A transport cannot offload while in a hostile seazone. Remember that hostile sea zones contain enemy units, but that for purposes of determining the status of a seazone, submarines and transports are ignored.”
In your example the sea combat - as the first part of the Amphibious Assault sequence - ends when there are only transports left. So the land combat phase will start. For unloading from the attacking transport the status of the seazone at this moment (the very beginning of land combat) is still “hostile” but the “defending” transport can be ignored. Land combat can start.
That is what I read from the rules.
But let’s see what Krieghund says…
:-)
From page 19:
In a sea battle, if both sides have only transports remaining, the attacker’s transports may remain in the contested sea zone or retreat per the rules in Condition B below.
When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the units in it. Therefore, to win the battle, you must normally destroy all of those units. However, transports are an exception, as they aren’t warships and don’t make a sea zone hostile. Under the rare circumstances that Telamon has brought up, the attacker has effectively won the battle by destroying all of the defending combat units. The above rule was added in order to clarify this point and keep an amphibious assault from being blocked by transports alone. Since the attacking transports may remain in the sea zone, the assault may go forward, as P@nther pointed out.
The wording of the amphibious assault land combat rule on page 17 was intended to support this concept, but unfortunately it left fighters out of the equation. I agree that this needs an erratum, and I’m already working on it.
Thanks once again Krieg.
I’m happy with that outcome. The whole thing is very intuitive, but I can appreciate it’s very difficult to explain it as a set of written rules.
If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?
If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?
Defending fighters can move one space to find a legal landing space (a land territory they control bordering that sea zone or a carrier in an adjoining sea zone) other wise the fightes are destroyed (ran out of fuel).
If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?
Retreating after they take the CV’s off the board is an interesting question and I’m curious to see what Krieg has to say. I actually saw this move done today on tripleA and the fighters where destroyed because they weren’t in range of a safe landing zone.
@I:
If you were to attack a Carriar group with all Fgts and they opped to take the carriars form the board could you retreat and would the enemy still lose the fighters form those carriars for not having a place to land?
Retreating after they take the CV’s off the board is an interesting question and I’m curious to see what Krieg has to say. I actually saw this move done today on tripleA and the fighters where destroyed because they weren’t in range of a safe landing zone.
It’s a fairly common tactic, so you have to be careful when declaring your losses.
