You have the choice of sinking the transport or bombarding. You can’t do both.
Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
-
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
-
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.Correct.
-
@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
I’m with you, but I don’t like this buy or move in a Destroyer and there goes your bombardment rule. This really hurts Japan the most. In my games I have got to think invading Western US, and this gives them a cheap way out of opening round hits. I see the argument, I’m a little crabby about it though.
-
You can’t move in a destroyer. If you do, combat will occur on your turn, and your destroyer will be gone before your opponent’s turn, so you won’t stop the bombardment. You have to purchase and mobilize the destroyer in the hostile sea zone for this to work.
-
Yes. I didn’t state it correctly there. The point is stacking up warships with the intent of Bombardment can be negated pretty easily with this rule.
Suggested Topics
