General AA question

Yes, because on my computer game it did that once.

Dylan’s computer is right.

The question should be asked though; why would you ever want to do it that way?

One reason, say you have a stack on two tt. The enemy has one tt in between (weekly guarded). You attack with just enough units to kill him. Now you can blitz tanks through the tt you just took (in non combat) to the other side, maybe to strengthen it. We do this w/Jap tank march to Russia. One Jap force comes from India and attacks Persia (mostly inf), the other from China (mostly tanks). Take the one Russian buffer tt in between from China (leave some tanks behind) then you can blitz through the Russian tt (from China) in non combat to meet up with your inf coming from Persia. Divided Russia may be able to take out one stack or the other, but put them together and she may not be able to.

Another one is say you are taking a coastal tt. You wanted to bring in more units by transport but there was an enemy ship blocking your way so you could not do an amphib assault w/orig attack. You do the navy battle, now in noncombat the path is clear, so you can transport your other units in now to the tt you just took. Might be more useful in 1940 games w/NB allowing ships to move 3 sz. There seems to be a lot of cock blocking in the Pacific.

@dinosaur:

The question should be asked though; why would you ever want to do it that way?

Their like reinforcements.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

So let me get this straight, in sea battles, you can kill an enemy blocker ship (destroyer) in the combat phase and move your fleet past that SZ into the next SZ in the non-combat phase assuming that none of your fleet is engaging in a combat move. Is this correct?

Yes, assuming that either the next sea zone is friendly or your fleet consists of only subs.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

I think your first situation is correct but I’m having a hard time understanding the benefit of the second situation, unless I’m misreading it. If you are engaging in combat in the sea zone and the coastal territory (with the SZ the only access point to the territory), why wouldn’t you just bring the transport along with the naval attack to assist in capturing the territory?

If the blocking ship was not on the coast (one sz out), you could kill him in combat and move transports in during non combat to off load them onto the  coastal tt you just took. Assuming that you indeed did take the coastal tt by other means.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

So let me get this straight, in sea battles, you can kill an enemy blocker ship (destroyer) in the combat phase and move your fleet past that SZ into the next SZ in the non-combat phase assuming that none of your fleet is engaging in a combat move. Is this correct? If so this really changes things for me in Pacific…

Yes that is what I was referring to. You can kill the enemies ships in combat (using just a few ships or planes even). Then in noncombat move into the cleared sz (1st move) with your ships that where not involved in the battle. Then (2nd move) to the coast to off load your transports on to the coastal tt you also took during combat. Of coarse the 2nd sz could not be hostel. You can also do this to join two of you fleets together. It doesn’t come up to often, but in P40 it could be useful to both the allies or Japan (especially when you consider NB).