Alright so this is what just happened in one of our games, and we’re PRETTY sure we got it right, but here’s what happened.
Japan attacked the Hawaiian Islands sea zone with 3 carriers loaded with 4 fighters and 2 tactical bombers, a destroyer, and a cruiser. He had intent of launching an amphibious assault.
America defended with 3 scrambled tactical bombers, 2 destroyers, and 7 subs.
America ended up taking out the Japanese destroyer and cruiser (among other things, but those exact casaulties aren’t relevanT) and America took the tacs and destroyers as casaulties.
So the situation we had was, the Japanese fighters couldn’t attack the American subs due to the lack of a destroyer.
All that remained in the sea zone was Japanese aircraft, carriers, and transports and American subs.
My dad, playing as Japan, argued that since subs cannot launch sneak attacks at transports anymore, he could launch the amphibious assault.
My position as well as my friend’s, playing as America, was that the Japanese couldn’t kill the remaining American units, but couldn’t simply ignore them and launch their assault because the American units could still fire back, and the only Japanese option was to retreat.
We ended up going with the latter.
What is the official ruling on this situation?