#1. No. UK must have a destroyer in order for its planes to hit subs.
#2. If there is at least one German warship in the sea zone at the end of combat movement, yes; otherwise, no.
#3. False. The US fighter will be safe, but the surviving Japanese ships can retreat after one round of combat. Of course, all of Japan’s planes will be lost, having nowhere to land.
@Young:
#3. Japan conducts an amphibious assault on Hawaii with 10 aircraft carriers, 20 carrier based planes, and 10 fully loaded transports, while Hawaii has 1 American Fighter. Japan needs the carriers to legally land all 20 air units which have been assigned to the land battle, so America scrambles it’s single Fighter from their operational air base and sinks up to $500 in Japanese units while landing their fighter safely on land. Is this true or false?
#3. False. The US fighter will be safe, but the surviving Japanese ships can retreat after one round of combat. Of course, all of Japan’s planes will be lost, having nowhere to land.
Krieghund, confused here. I know in retreat all units would retreat to the same space/sz in a direction from which at least one of them came from. (so all the ships would retreat back one space). The 20 air units were involved in a different battle on land (not the same sea battle as the ships). That land battle didn’t happen because the 1 ftr scrambled to the sea, so the air units wouldn’t be retreating would they. If they had movement points left (2 moves), they could reach the carriers couldn’t they.
Of course the moral of the story is to cover the scramble ability of your enemy, especially when you are in a position to over kill.
@WILD:
If they had movement points left (2 moves), they could reach the carriers couldn’t they.
Yes, they could. However, from the wording of the original question (“Japan needs the carriers to legally land all 20 air units”), I assumed that they had only one movement point left. Perhaps that was an invalid assumption, as it was not stated that they needed to be in that particular sea zone.
Ok cool, thought I missed something
@WILD:
If they had movement points left (2 moves), they could reach the carriers couldn’t they.
Yes, they could. However, from the wording of the original question (“Japan needs the carriers to legally land all 20 air units”), I assumed that they had only one movement point left. Perhaps that was an invalid assumption, as it was not stated that they needed to be in that particular sea zone.
So there can be a retreat even if the attacker stated that it would be an amphibious assault? I thought retreats were not allowed during amphibious assaults.
Land units cannot retreat from an amphibious assault once landed. This is a retreat from a naval battle. The amphibious assault never happened.
Land units cannot retreat from an amphibious assault once landed. This is a retreat from a naval battle. The amphibious assault never happened.
OK Great… Thanks.
There WOULD be a battle in Hawaii even though the hypothetical fighter scrambled and defended against 10 carriers which had no attack value.
The fighters are required to attack for at least one round, even though the amphibious ground units didn’t make it to the party.
So in this example, where the attacker clearly didn’t understand the rules or made a big oversight, the fighter scrambles.
I’m assuming, like Krieghund did, that the fighters over Hawaii only have 1 movement point left.
Retreating the carriers from the fighter (because it’s a losing proposition) would save the carriers and transports and ground units (at least until USA’s turn!). They would all have to retreat 1 space to a sea zone along a path that they attacked from.
The 20 fighters over Hawaii are doomed because there is no landing space, so the attacker should attack until all attacking or all defending units are destroyed.
Wild Bill is mistaken in saying the land battle wouldn’t happen. The battle in Hawaii MUST happen (at least for one full round) because the attacker legally made a combat move of 20 fighters to Hawaii. It’s only the attacking amphibious ground units that will not be attacking Hawaii, but retreating and staying on their transport(s).
There WOULD be a battle in Hawaii even though the hypothetical fighter scrambled and defended against 10 carriers which had no attack value.
The fighters are required to attack for at least one round, even though the amphibious ground units didn’t make it to the party.So in this example, where the attacker clearly didn’t understand the rules or made a big oversight, the fighter scrambles.
I’m assuming, like Krieghund did, that the fighters over Hawaii only have 1 movement point left.
Retreating the carriers from the fighter (because it’s a losing proposition) would save the carriers and transports and ground units (at least until USA’s turn!). They would all have to retreat 1 space to a sea zone along a path that they attacked from.
The 20 fighters over Hawaii are doomed because there is no landing space, so the attacker should attack until all attacking or all defending units are destroyed.Wild Bill is mistaken in saying the land battle wouldn’t happen. The battle in Hawaii MUST happen (at least for one full round) because the attacker legally made a combat move of 20 fighters to Hawaii. It’s only the attacking amphibious ground units that will not be attacking Hawaii, but retreating and staying on their transport(s).
So what you’re saying is, after the lone Fighter on Hawaii has scrambled and defended the sea zone for at least one combat round (forcing the naval units to retreat). The 20 Japanese air units that were assigned to the land battle in Hawaii (but will eventually crash after combat)…. will get a chance to kill the single American fighter once it returns home after scrambling during the same resolve combat phase?
No, I’m not saying that.
The American fighter is out in Z26. Scrambled fighters and tacs don’t land until all combat is complete.
I’m saying the 20 Japanese fighters can (must, for one round) attack everything else that is still left behind at Hawaii. If there are other tacs or fighters, the USA player may want to scramble them as well to protect them from the 20 fighters (depending on the amount of USA force on Hawaii)
No, I’m not saying that.
The American fighter is out in Z26. Scrambled fighters and tacs don’t land until all combat is complete.
I’m saying the 20 Japanese fighters can (must, for one round) attack everything else that is still left behind at Hawaii. If there are other tacs or fighters, the USA player may want to scramble them as well to protect them from the 20 fighters (depending on the amount of USA force on Hawaii)
Agreed, the original scenario said that there was only one American Fighter on Hawaii (which scrambled)… but if there was more there, the air units could engage them before they crash.
Hi.
I don’t really understand rule about kamikaze.
What if USA attacks me (Japan).
do i have to declare kamikaze attack and scrambling simultaneously or one of these goes first?
if i hit an AC does his fighters still participate in fight?
AC are in that sz because attacking aircraft’s must land on it.
If yes - do they fight till end or must they be removed first as losses?
If no - are planes dead or they can stay in there original position before combat moves?
thanx
Hi cro.
Pretty much simultaneously, because both declarations must be made before any dice are rolled. (First thing in combat phase)
Yes. The fighters are in the air before you get any hits.
Fighters may fight to the end - you may take a carrier off before the fighters, even if the fighters will then have no place to land.
Think of it this way. Fighters must only be guaranteed a possible place to land in the combat movement phase
Once you’re in combat, you are free to strand fighters at will.
The only time fighters are EVER trapped on board a carrier in combat, is a GUEST ALLIED fighter on your ATTACKING carrier. Those are the only fighters that are NOT in the air during combat.
Thank you.
We always moved planes before AC. We thought they have to have landing space all the time.
This will be nice for different strategy.
Technically, since scrambling occurs at the end of the Combat Move phase and kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Conduct Combat phase, scrambling occurs just before kamikaze strikes.
Technically, since scrambling occurs at the end of the Combat Move phase and kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Conduct Combat phase, scrambling occurs just before kamikaze strikes.
But practically, they’re simultaneous, right? Would it even make a difference if different people are controlling Japan and Germany/Italy? Is there any circumstance where it matters that scrambling occurs at the end of the combat move phase and kamikaze decisions are made at the beginning of the combat phase?
The only thing that’s important is that all scrambling is done before any dice are rolled for kamikaze (or anything else). From that perspective, it’s just easier to do scrambling first.
can japan load a transport into a newly hostile seazone on their combat move, if japan declared war at the beginning of it’s turn?
can japan load a transport into a newly hostile seazone on their combat move, if japan declared war at the beginning of it’s turn?
YES. Any nation can load transports in newly hostile seazones if the nation just declared war on that enemy at the beginning of that turn. This is the only exception to the rule that you can’t load transports in hostile zones.
So happy I found this forum/thread. Lots of issues cleared up. But got a few questions needing confirmation.
-When a country takes another’s capital, the occupying country then gets whatever ipc the country it took collected from the turn before? (Ex. Germany collected 43 ipc at the end of their turn, UK then takes Berlin, Germany then must give the UK their 43 ipc for taking their capital.)
-When a countries capital is occupied (say France for example) but they still control other territories (Say 2 African territories worth 1 a piece), does France then collect 2 ipc per turn and put into their bank until their capital is liberated. Say Paris is liberated 10 turns later, would France have 20 ipc to spend then on their turn?
-Say London is captured by Germany, Egypt is captured by Italy. The US then takes Egypt back while London is still occupied, could the US build a Minor IC in Egypt then? (I know if there was one there they could use it but could they build?) and to follow up if they can build one, and then London is liberated, would that factory go to the UK?
The straight’s and Canal’s are restricted by the country who controls the designated territory (Gibralter controls the straight if Gibralter), but can subs move through canals and straights where the territory is controlled by the enemy. (Ex US controls straight of Gibralter, could Italian subs go through?
