Naval bases are in effect for ALL sea zones adjacent to the territory the base is located on. Naval bases cannot be built in the ocean/sea. So yes, the Battleship in SZs 110 and 109 may be repaired by the London naval base. SZ 111 is adjacent to Scotland only, not England, therefore, the naval base in England cannot be used to repair a battleship in SZ 111.
Note, sometimes sea zones effected can be completely non-adjacent too! For instance, the naval base in Leningrad (Novgorod) applies to friendly ships in both SZ 115 and SZ 127!
Good morning all.
Quick question regarding Sea Bases and repairing.
Could a 1 point of damage battleship in SZ 111 be repaired by a sea base in London without moving? The SZ is adjacent to the immediate SZ that the base is in.
No, you have to be in a seazone serviced by a naval base. A naval base services all adjacent sea zones.
Examples: Naval base in Novgorod services 115 and 127.
Naval base in England services 110 and 109
You would have to build a naval base in Scotland to service Z111 on the subsequent turns.
@Cmdr:
Note, sometimes sea zones effected can be completely non-adjacent too! For instance, the naval base in Leningrad (Novgorod) applies to friendly ships in both SZ 115 and SZ 127!
The sea zone has to be adjacent to the territory with the naval base. Jenn means that 115 and 127 are not adjacent to each other, yet both are serviced by the base in Novgorod. That is because 115 and 127 are each adjacent to Novgorod, where the base is.
Can Chinese forces move into the neutral territories north of China?
@Trisdin:
Can Chinese forces move into the neutral territories north of China?
No.
Hello!
I think someone else asked this question somewhere in here, but anyway Id really like an official answer from say Krieghund or Gamerman:
On G1: If I attack the UK dd & trn in sz 109 with only subs, and the UK scrambles a couple of fighters, can the planes hit the subs even if the subs take out the ships in the first round of battle? (Since the dd technically is not yet sunk, and can fire back before removed from play).
Yes. Casualties are removed at the end of each combat round. Defending casualties are selected first, but they still remain for the completion of that round of combat, therefore, the destroyer would still be ‘present’ and able to locate the submarines for the fighters.
@Cmdr:
Yes. Casualties are removed at the end of each combat round. Defending casualties are selected first, but they still remain for the completion of that round of combat, therefore, the destroyer would still be ‘present’ and able to locate the submarines for the fighters.
Ok, thanks Jennifer, Im sure your right with your experience and all, but If I could get a 100% confirmation on this from Krieg it would be GREAT :lol:
@Cmdr:
Yes. Casualties are removed at the end of each combat round. Defending casualties are selected first, but they still remain for the completion of that round of combat, therefore, the destroyer would still be ‘present’ and able to locate the submarines for the fighters.
Ok, thanks Jennifer, Im sure your right with your experience and all, but If I could get a 100% confirmation on this from Krieg it would be GREAT :lol:
Jennifer is right on this. Not sure if my confirmation will satisfy you, and Krieghund authority is much > Gamerman, but I am 100% sure on this, if that helps.
Confirmed.
Thanks :-)
A quick one: Since the UK controls the Canadian territories, can Germany attack these without provocing the US into war? Whatever the answer I assume the same goes for disrupting the convoy in sz 106, right?
Thanks again!
Since the UK controls the Canadian territories, can Germany attack these without provocing the US into war?
In the box rules, yes. However, in Alpha taking these will provoke the US into war.
Whatever the answer I assume the same goes for disrupting the convoy in sz 106, right?
This may be done without provoking the US in either ruleset.
Just wanted to know… What is the reasoning behind not being able to declare Bombardment ships and Sea battle ships in an amphibious assault?
It seems kind of stupid to have Japan making just 1 Destroyer to stop 20 Battleship Bombardments does it not?
If you fail the sea battle, the amphibious assault and bombardment ships would just automatically die right? (getting sneaked attacked by the victorious sea battle enemy?)
Not sure of the “official” rationale but I can tell you that throughout the history of the game, you have not been permitted to both fight in the sea zone and on the land. Since the infantry, artillery and armor (not sure why you would transport MI, but those too) did not engage in combat in the sea zone, they are permitted to engage in combat on the land after landing. However, the sea zone is hostile and must be cleared if an enemy surface warship is present, and all units (theoretically including the transports who cannot attack or be taken as casualties before combat is resolved) you bring to the sea zone for the amphibious assault must engage the enemy ships and clear them before the transports can unload.
I believe the rule book states something similar to that, I just cannot give you a page number off the top of my head.
If during your combat move you fly planes off of a carrier and if the planes are destroyed must the carrier still move into position to allow “dead” planes to land during the non combat move, or can the carrier stay put if it’s services are no longer required?
If during your combat move you fly planes off of a carrier and if the planes are destroyed must the carrier still move into position to allow “dead” planes to land during the non combat move, or can the carrier stay put if it’s services are no longer required?
The carrier is free to do whatever it wants. Note that a carrier cannot be committed to more than 2 planes during the combat movement phase. You have to assume all your planes will survive combat when counting fighters to carriers. That is, you can’t send 3 fighters to a battle to be picked up by 1 carrier, even if it is extremely unlikely all 3 fighters will survive.
But yes, if the fighters that the carrier needs to pick up get destroyed, the carrier is then free from picking them up and can even sail off in the opposite direction if desired.
Imagine 4 seazones, A-B-C-D (from left to right).
Seazone A has a sub + carrier + fighter of power X.
Seazone C has 20 battleships of power Y.
Seazone D has 10 loaded transports of power Y.
Now X uses the fighter to ‘attack’ the transports in D and says the fighter will land in seazone C with its last movement point. X also attacks the stack of battleships with the sub.
Is this legal? And must X move the carrier to seazone C in the noncombat phase? After all, a fighter must have a theoretical legal landing spot and the carrier may not be moved elsewhere, right?
Yes, it’s legal, because the fighter has a possible landing space. Remember, the rules say that in order to determine a possible landing space, you may assume that all of your rolls will be hits and all of your opponent’s rolls will be misses.
If by some miracle the sub defeats the battleships, the carrier must move to pick up the fighter. In the more likely event that the sub loses, the carrier may not move to the sea zone, as the move would be illegal (the sea zone would remain hostile), so the fighter will have no place to land and will be lost.
Can China land it’s fighter in Kwangtung (Hon) or Burma (Bur), the 2 UK territories china is allowed to occupy, if UK is not yet at war with Japan, but China and UK are at war with Germany and Italy (effectively making them full allies)?
I have a further question on that fleet battle situation, would it be legal to retreat the attacking sub if it didn’t get hit, or are you forced to continue attacking to try and clear the sz and get the ftr a landing zone?
