Industrial complexes, scrambling, islands

Thank you Panther

Yes, a Japanese destroyer in SZ 16.

You’ve got three responses available to the US that I am aware of:

1: Move your entire fleet into SZ 16 to kill the blocker. Units can also come directly from the US west coast to SZ 15, meaning everything can converge on SZ 6 in the following round (or to Wake/Hawaii if you somehow scare them away (or perhaps midway if they put a naval base there)). If nothing else, you know for sure they’re coming.

And:

2: Sending planes to kill it. 1/3 chance they lose a 10 IPC plane. Basically a 3/3 chance Japan loses an 8 IPC destroyer.

3: Actually sending a submarine or destroyer to kill it along with planes. (This is not a very smart play if America has enough planes for #2 alone to be viable, but some people don’t realize this.)

(4: Staging on Midway on a new naval base instead, but like I said, this is kinda silly for America and great for Japan unless they weren’t able to hit your destroyer block on the turn before for some reason.)

#'s 2 and 3 are very annoying, and not great for Japan, and are obviously not very sustainable, so this is why the destroyer block is something you should only do when necessary.

This is why I like to keep 1-3 fighters (usually 3) on Japan proper and build, or at least keep, one or two boats there per turn. If America does want to come swooping in to SZ 6, they are going to need enough to get through 1-2 boats and fighters. This means they must either over-invest (because you didn’t scramble), or they under-invest and then you kill them for (hopefully) a decent ratio when you do scramble. If they over-invest, kamikazes are an option (see edit), but maybe more importantly it means that whatever they sent to stand up to your boats/planes is now within range for a super nice counterattack with subs/planes.

Obvious times when the destroyer block is worth it:
-America has enough transports on Hawaii to make Japan worry about its capital, or potentially Korea.
-Japan built a lot of navy (more than one or two boats) on SZ 6 and wants to keep it alive.

Moreover, buying 1-2 boats a round off of Japan and keeping planes there means that if america tries to pre-block you in SZ 16 (moving in, say, some amount of destroyers to SZ 16 and SZ 25 while his fleet is coming from Panama/Sydney, to in effect block your attempts to block him with only a simple destroyer of your own), you have boats and planes available to you to destroy his block-blocker in SZ 16 and remain able to delay him for a round.

I keep 1-3 fighters there starting from J1, and begin building 1-2 boats there J3+ in most instances.

edit-
Last bit of advice: If you think there’s a good chance America is going to bring in a lot of navy on its noncom to SZ 6 after attacking it with a smaller force (or they telegraph this intention by bringing a lot of planes to the fight in SZ6), and Japan is sitting on FIC/Philipines with all of its navy/air in range to attack on the very next round, do not be stingy with your Kamikazes. If you can destroy even one more destroyer before the big navy clash, that can swing the probability by something like 5 (+/- 2)%. The entire Pacific depends on a massive fight such as this. 1% would be worth it, let alone more, and you might even hit multiple boats if you’re a lucky b��t��d. When it’s crunch time, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Regarding SZ 110, I got hosed one time on a UK scramble. Usually as Germany, I send 3 fighters, 3 Stukas, 1 bombers and sometimes 1 sub to SZ 110. Our UK player had gotten in the habit of not scrambling in order to save the RAF for future action.
Well, this one game I made the mistake of just assuming UK would not scramble. I sent 2 fighters, 2 Stukas and 1 bomber to SZ 110. The other fighter and Stuka I sent to kill the French fleet in SZ 93. Well, UK taught me a lesson. They scrambled and wiped out my planes. I didn’t even kill all the ships in the channel.
Never made that mistake again.

It’s not a matter of etiquette.  The owner of the air unit makes the decision whether or not to scramble it, regardless of the controller of the territory it’s in or the owner of the attacked fleet.

@wheatbeer:

Page 20 in the Europe rulebook says its possible:
“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory from an ally’s transport, but only on the attacking land unit owner’s turn.”

Clear enough! Thank you!

@wheatbeer:

The transport unit description doesn’t seem to contradict this.

I still am a bit confused because of the Transport unit description
“Amphibious Assaults: A transport can take part in an amphibious assault step of the Conduct Combat phase. That is the only time a transport can offload into a hostile territory.”

So in fact a transport can offload into a hostile territory under two circumstances:
1. own troops in an amphibious assault on it’s own combat move
2. allied troops (cargo) as part of the combat move of the allied nation
  (but here the Transport cannot be part of the amphibious assault because allied nations never attack together)

But no more arguing, I am convinced now.
Thank you again.
:-)

@cond1024:

I would say no, because you didn’t own it at the start of your turn.

indeed.

Rulebook at page 22 says: “place new facilities in any territory that you have controlled since the start of your turn”

@Get:

Krieg, in the Alpha+ is it illegal for ICs to be placed on Japanese controlled mainland territories? I’m confused about the no ICs on foreign territories.

I’ll illegal to build MAJOR ICs

Whomever asked this question has no idea what they are talking about and clearly don’t understand simple language.