Thanks for the welcoming!!
That’s exactly what I’ve undestood and the way we played after discussion.
Then I’ve to go back to my board and keep on crushing my axis friend!!
Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
-
Can the attacker split his attacking Navy to accomplish both the naval battle and the offshore fire for landing troops, or is the battleship automatically used in the Naval battle? If Battleship needs to be used in the Naval battle, what if he dosen’t have to fire? If a split is possible, the battleship would have to be brought into the Naval battle if the dice go horribly, right?
The argument is whether this is actually a foul, seeing that there is a pending combat movement (the landing).
-
No, you can not designate part of your fleet to part of a battle, and another portion to support the amphibious landing via offshores.
That would be the land equiviliant of saying my tanks are attacking your ftrs in the embattled territory while my inf take on your infantry in the same territory.
-
Can the attacker split his attacking Navy to accomplish both the naval battle and the offshore fire for landing troops
The rulebook clearly states that this is not possible, so no.
-
Okay, let’s say the seazone in question is off Western US. If Japan owns the seazone and there is an impending Amphibious Assault and the US buys a destroyer or even a transport in that seazone, that would negate an offshore fire, and the whole landing? Are you sure about this?
-
A destroyer would negate offshore bombardment, as the Japanese fleet would have to attack it. A transport may or may not negate offshore bombardment, as the Japanese player would have a choice whether to attack or ignore the transport.
In any case, the landing itself would not be blocked.
-
Could transports and landing party in Hawaii enter into a contested/hostile seazone if US buys the Destroyer and make the landing without offshore fire?
The rules say a player may only enter an amphibious assualt into a non-hostile seazone. Would the loaded transports have to already be off the coast of Western US? I’m not seeing the point here.
-
@Capt.:
Could transports and landing party in Hawaii enter into a contested/hostile seazone if US buys the Destroyer and make the landing without offshore fire?
Yes.
@Capt.:
The rules say a player may only enter an amphibious assualt into a non-hostile seazone. Would the loaded transports have to already be off the coast of Western US? I’m not seeing the point here.
No, the rules say that the sea zone must be friendly or about to become friendly as a result of sea combat. You can attack the sea zone and amphibious assault from it in the same turn.
-
@Unknown:
Can the attacker split his attacking Navy to accomplish both the naval battle and the offshore fire for landing troops
The rulebook clearly states that this is not possible, so no.
So I cheated a couple times, won’t happen again. :wink: I’m trying to get the full definition of a hostile seazone and offshore/landings. Japan can take Phillipines on J1 just no bombardment, got it. Thanks again.
-
Better question:
Japan is about to Amphibiously Assault W. USA.
Russia has their submarine in SZ 56.
Technically, the Battleships and Transports can ignore the submarine and may conduct off shore bombardments as if the submarine was not present.
However, if Japan sent in destroyers, that cannot do the bombardment of W. USA, they should be able to attack the enemy submarine.
-
Now that’s something of interest. The Russian Sub, or any subs, would choose submerge and to attack at 2 rather than defend at 1, to take a chance on that Battleship, or not. This allows the bombardment, provided Japan doesn’t bring in the Destroyer, good call.
-
@Cmdr:
Better question:
Japan is about to Amphibiously Assault W. USA.
Russia has their submarine in SZ 56.
Technically, the Battleships and Transports can ignore the submarine and may conduct off shore bombardments as if the submarine was not present.
However, if Japan sent in destroyers, that cannot do the bombardment of W. USA, they should be able to attack the enemy submarine.
They can. But if they do, the battleships also attack the subs and forego bombardment. If there is a battle in the sea zone, every unit in the sea zone from both sides will participate.
If there are no destroyers, and the battleships attack the sub but the sub submerges rather than fight, it still counts as a battle and costs the battleships their bombardment. The only way for the battleships to bombard is to ignore the sub.
-
Just thought of an interesting scenario, if you have two separate naval forces launching an amphibious assault on a single territory from two separate sea zones, can one group engage in sea combat and the other conduct shore bombardment? I would say yes since the rules state that “If there was NOT a combat in the sea zone from which you are offloading units from transports, any accompanying battleships and cruisers may bombard the coastal territory being attacked”.
-
You would be right. However, the number of ships that could bombard from that sea zone would be limited to the number of land units assaulting from that sea zone.
-
You would be right. However, the number of ships that could bombard from that sea zone would be limited to the number of land units assaulting from that sea zone.
On further reflection, this answer is a bit misleading. If a territory is being amphibiously assaulted from two sea zones, ships from both sea zones can bombard as long as no sea combat occured in those sea zones and transports unloaded from both sea zones. The total number of ships that can bombard is limited to the total number of land units assaulting from transports, but it doesn’t matter which sea zone the transports unload from for purposes of limiting bombardment. However, at least one land unit must assault from each clear sea zone using supporting bombardment.
Example 1: Three battleships and one transport carrying two infantry attack from sea zone A, and a cruiser and two transports carrying four infantry attack from sea zone B. No sea battles are fought. Since six infantry are amphibiously assaulting and at least one came from each sea zone, all three of sea zone A’s battleships and sea zone B’s cruiser may bombard.
Example 2: Three battleships and one transport carrying two infantry attack from sea zone A, and a cruiser and two transports carrying four infantry attack from sea zone B. A sea battle is fought successfully in sea zone B. Since six infantry are amphibiously assaulting and at least one came from sea zone A, all three of sea zone A’s battleships may bombard. The cruiser may not bombard, since it was involved in sea combat.
Example 3: Three battleships and one transport carrying two infantry attack from sea zone A, and a cruiser and two transports carrying four infantry attack from sea zone B. A sea battle is fought unsuccessfully in sea zone B, and the remainder of that fleet retreats. Since only two infantry are amphibiously assaulting from sea zone A, only two of sea zone A’s battleships may bombard.
-
Just to be sure:
What you explained, Krieghund, is because of the rulebook that - concerning bombardment attacks limits - does not refer to the number of units that are unloaded FROM any number of transports in any seazone but to the number of units that are offloaded IN that coastal territory, right?
-
Right. To put it another way, ships in a sea zone are eligible to bombard in support of an amphibious assault if at least one transport unloaded from that sea zone and there was no sea combat there. The total number of ships that may bombard from such sea zones is limited to the total number of land units participating in the assault. Bombarding ships may be chosen from any eligible sea zone, regardless of how many units unloaded from that particular sea zone.
-
In this context, especially the business of buying a Destroyer to offset a coastal bombardment. Does this add strength to Germany industrializing France?
-
@Cmdr:
Better question:
Japan is about to Amphibiously Assault W. USA.
Russia has their submarine in SZ 56.
Technically, the Battleships and Transports can ignore the submarine and may conduct off shore bombardments as if the submarine was not present.
However, if Japan sent in destroyers, that cannot do the bombardment of W. USA, they should be able to attack the enemy submarine.
regarding your last section cmdr jen, is it then not possible at all for Japan just to say that they “chose” not to detect the sub? i.e. in this case “forfitting” their sub spotting technology to their own advantage. Logically one should be able to chose to ignore a sub regardless of whether one could see it or not
-
Right. To put it another way, ships in a sea zone are eligible to bombard in support of an amphibious assault if at least one transport unloaded from that sea zone and there was no sea combat there. The total number of ships that may bombard from such sea zones is limited to the total number of land units participating in the assault. Bombarding ships may be chosen from any eligible sea zone, regardless of how many units unloaded from that particular sea zone.
Clarifying ground unit to offshore ratio, the units need to be unloaded from transports and not moved in from an adjacent territory, correct?
example:
4 BB’s, 1 tpt unloading 2 inf, 2 inf into France. 2 inf come from Southern europe into the same battle. Only 2 BB’s can offshore. -
@Capt.:
In this context, especially the business of buying a Destroyer to offset a coastal bombardment. Does this add strength to Germany industrializing France?
yes it CAN if the Allies are going to employ a CA/BB heavy navy that can do alot of Bombardment damage.
However, I think that adding an inf & tank might be a better buy than a DD that can do no damage to a large allied navy with a BB that can absorb the DD’s retail shot.
It depends on how many CA/BB’s there are in the allied navy
Suggested Topics
