LL is different again. Since its not random and the end result can be worked out, I would say NO you cannot do this with LL. There was clear definitions on the Harris website, stating the difference between everything on this topic. ( In regards to defining a legal landing space ) I can find it but right now it is sleep time. Since these games dont cover LL because I think its classified as a house rule, they probably wont have a rule on this. So common sense says since you know the out come of every battle, before it takes place, not including battles that are equal and require the remainder to be rolled then you could not use this in LL. Can anyone else back this up with references as this is just my opinion on the subject.
It’s not a loophole. It’s a rule.
When dealing with this situation, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Many people would like it to be drawn at a “reasonable” chance of success. However, everyone has a different opinion on what is reasonable. Besides, do you want to calculate the odds every time to see if it’s legal?
Dispensing with that, you’re left with the choice of either allowing it if there’s any chance at all of success or disallowing it if there’s any chance at all of failure. The designers chose the former.
As for how Low Luck affects this rule, I’ve opined on that in this thread.
So essentially it is a rule and all game rules are in effect LL as they are in ADS games. The difference is that in LL the outcomes are mostly pre-determined.
If the allies land in west Germany and control it, do they get a one time bonus?. If so how much is the bonus? What other territories in Europe get a one time liberation bonus?
@Young:
If the allies land in west Germany and control it, do they get a one time bonus?. If so how much is the bonus? What other territories in Europe get a one time liberation bonus?
Russia gets a 1 time bonus for taking Germany. There is no known bonus for W. Germany that I am aware of. (Other than Russia getting 3 IPC for controlling it, as they do for all other German territories.)
Yes,Sorry NO.
Kinda sounds like Arnold in Kindergarden cop, “It’s not a loophole”.
Hi, I’ve got a few question concerning G40 OOB
1. Can a sea unit move through a space that was cleared of enemy warships during the combat phase in the non-combat movement phase?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, let’s say a fighter moves to attack another sea zone, let’s say sz 6, and the only available landing space would be if the player moves an AC in an adjacent space, let’s say sz 17 for exemple. During the combat phase, a sea zone is cleared of ennemy warships and the player has a new path available to him and can move his AC to sz 7 in the NCMs phase. Since that landing space couldn’t be considered a legitimate one at the start of the combat phase, can the player still land his fighters in that sea zone
Hi, I’ve got a few question concerning G40 OOB
1. Can a sea unit move through a space that was cleared of enemy warships during the combat phase in the non-combat movement phase?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, let’s say a fighter moves to attack another sea zone, let’s say sz 6, and the only available landing space would be if the player moves an AC in an adjacent space, let’s say sz 17 for exemple. During the combat phase, a sea zone is cleared of ennemy warships and the player has a new path available to him and can move his AC to sz 7 in the NCMs phase. Since that landing space couldn’t be considered a legitimate one at the start of the combat phase, can the player still land his fighters in that sea zone
Yes yes yes. All of those are legal moves.
I will illustrate further with your example.
There are 10 Jap transports in Z6 and no fighters that can scramble to defend them. They are defenseless. Your USA fleet is stationed at Hawaii in Z26. The Japs have a destroyer in every single sea zone in the Pacific, but none in Z6. Besides this, the Japs have massive fleets in Z25 and Z31. You do not control any land on the Asian mainland. You can legally sink all 10 transports with a single fighter in the following manner:
Send a sub to Z31 or Z25.
Send a fighter to Z24 or Z23 to attack the lone destroyer
Send a fighter to Z17 for your hypothetical carrier to pick up the fighter from Z6.
Send a fighter to Z6.
You can assume for purposes of a legal landing place for the Z6 fighter that the sub will destroy the entire fleet in Z31 or Z25, according to the rules. You can assume that your fighter attacking 24 or 23 will be victorious. You can assume your fighter going to Z17 will also sink the destroyer (same rule). When all of these boats are hypothetically sunk, then the carrier would be free to move to Z17.
Now it is extremely unlikely that your sub will clear the fleet in Z31 or Z25, and therefore your carrier is not able to move to Z17, and therefore your fighter cannot land anywhere from Z6 and the fighter is lost, but not until after all 10 transports are sunk.
This is a perfectly legal and acceptable move according to the OOB (unchanged by Alphas) rules.
Thanks for the answer.
Can someone please explain Point 11 in the Alpha+2 Rules?
What excactly is a “Sneak attack” at unescorted transports?
Can someone please explain Point 11 in the Alpha+2 Rules?
What excactly is a “Sneak attack” at unescorted transports?
Alpha1 had a “sneak attack” for defending subs when unescorted transports waltzed over the top of them. Alpha2 point #11 does away with this, but makes it impossible for unescorted transports to make a combat move over the top of enemy submarines. There is no defending sneak attack on unescorted transports by your defending submarines anymore.
So, Subs can be ignored by Transports when NOT making an amphibious assault?
Can Transports ignore subs, when the subs are “in the way” to an amphibious assault (for example 1 Seazone away from the coastal zone).
A Transport and a Destroyer may ignore the sub for an amphibious assault?
Same as (3) but with a Cruiser / Battleship / Submarine instead of the Destroyer?
Thank you!
The only restriction is that a transport may not offload for an amphibious assault if there is an enemy sub in the sea zone unless there is also a warship (of any type) belonging to the same power in the sea zone at the end of combat movement.
Scenario:
Hawaii under US control:
US sub named “SS Botany Bay” in its sea zone, 3 planes able to scramble.
Japan sends 6 planes, 1 Destroyer, 4 transports one is named “Kobayashi Maru” to assault the see zone, then capture the island with land units. They depart Japan at 11:35 pm heading east for 3 hours at six knots before heading South for 9 hours with an average speed of 9 knots.
The US scrambles 3 planes nicknamed “Birds of Prey”, hoping the sub will hit, and that the Japs will score 3 or less hits.
The US sub hits, and by the rules must hit a naval vessel: the Jap DD.
Japan clears the US air units in the first combat round but the US sub survives.
Assumptions/Questions:
We now have a naval battle going to round 2? (since the sea zone was a battle, the sub is not ignored I believe)
We had an escorted transport fleet, so a sub should not be able to prevent the amphibious assault, but it did not, the US planes instead force a naval battle and the surviving sub creates a no-win scenario for the Japanese. All be it, a 1 in 6 chance for this Kobayashi Maru. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
Given: In round two, the planes cannot hit the sub because they lack a friendly DD.
Assumption: If the transports fail to retreat, then the US sub rolls a combat die and may pick off the transports over successive rounds, right?
Analysis/Conclusion:
If the above assumptions are correct. You can scramble enough air (up to 3) as soak offs, hoping the sub hits during the fight to arrest the amphibious assault because the sub became part of a naval battle as a result of a defensive scramble and can no longer be ignored, nor is it under the escorted amphibious restriction from Alpha2 because it is part of an unfinished naval battle. Although the odds are stacked against this outcome from occurring, it is what Captain Kirk would do: “Turn death into a fighting chance to live.”
Is this conclusion accurate?
In a battle with more than 1 surviving sub, it would be possible for extra sub hits to score hits on the transports if it went more rounds (i.e. the scramble planes do not die on round 1), right?
Sorry, I added the Star Trek theme to liven up this logic puzzle and the math problem train leaves station theme for past my bed time humor.
If this tactic proves sound, I aim to employ a similar tactic in a sz 109: Turn 1 stack 5 German subs and noncombat the BB and CA from 113 there to defend against the sz 106 dd and UK air attack on round 1, using the BB a_nd maybe_ a CA as a stand in for my “birds of prey” or soak offs giving the 5 subs a good chance(better than above scenario) to clear the DD and likely CA and thus convoy UK for 8 IPCs in conjunction with a Russia first approach with a 3 transport, 1 DD build T1 to keep UK honest. Now, how to clear sz 110 and 112 with only 11 air units using a few to protect the subs that seize sz109 and thus removing some UK scramblers. This could alternatively permit the use of 1 German sub(plus a surface ship)to defend Denmark from the sz 109 transport in a different scenario.
I believe the issue arose when the Attacker chose to ignore the defending sub, but the defender used it anyways. I believe the scrambling ftrs defend, but the sub has been ‘ignored’ and cannot partake in the battle.
drops in .02
The sub can only be ignored for combat movement purposes, Jimmy. Because of the other defending units (in this case, scrambled fighters), the sub cannot be “ignored”. The attacker and defender do not have a choice, once the fighters are scrambled, the sub is in the sea zone and because an enemy destroyer is present it cannot submerge.
OK, so the Japs get 3 hits and the USA player elects to take the 3 fighters, leaving the sub. The USA sub hits (one chance in 6), so the Jap destroyer is sunk.
You would be on round 2 with 4 transports and whatever fighters, and the USA has a sub.
You would need to retreat all the transports (to the same sea zone), because it’s a no-win situation for the Japs now. All of the transports will be sunk by the sub if you don’t retreat (you have absolutely nothing to gain from continuing the attack).
So from what I read, you are concluding correctly. And yes, if you got additional hits with multiple subs, after hitting the destroyer your only eligible targets would be transports, and they would be sunk to the extent you scored hits with subs (of course the attacker would choose which transports). You have to lose a unit for every hit if possible, so sub hits would be assigned first to enemy warships, and any excess would start sinking transports (before the attacker has a chance to retreat, presumably).
1. So, The United Kingdom and ANZAC can attack Japan at any time without declaring war and without the United States help (as the act won’t bring the US in). However, if Japan attacks the United Kingdom or ANZAC before the US are eligible to declare war, than the United States may become at war with Japan immediately.
2. The United Kingdom and ANZAC may land on Dutch islands at any time without the United States help (as the act won’t bring the US in), however, if Japan lands on Dutch islands before the US are eligible to declare war, than the United States may become at war with Japan immediately.
Are these 2 statements true, or false? I already know the answer to this, but my opponent wants a ruling and I can’t find it for him in the rule book. Thanks.
@Young:
1. So, The United Kingdom and ANZAC can attack Japan at any time without declaring war and without the United States help (as the act won’t bring the US in).
Not exactly. All powers must declare war before attacking another power (unless already at war with that power). Other than that, the statement is correct.
@Young:
However, if Japan attacks the United Kingdom or ANZAC before the US are eligible to declare war, than the United States may become at war with Japan immediately.
Not exactly. The US will become eligible to declare war, which it may do in the Combat Move phase of its next turn.
@Young:
2. The United Kingdom and ANZAC may land on Dutch islands at any time without the United States help (as the act won’t bring the US in),
Correct.
@Young:
however, if Japan lands on Dutch islands before the US are eligible to declare war, than the United States may become at war with Japan immediately.
Not exactly. Japan must be at war with UK/ANZAC before attacking Dutch territories. This may or may not make the US eligible to declare war on Japan, as indicated above.
So, that brings up another issue. The time to declare war for all powers (if they are eligible to due so) is before their combat move phase (except for the US who unless receive an unprovoked attack may only declare war at the end of their 3rd turn) and must be done verbally or risk the inability to attack legally. Therefore forcing them to wait until their next turn. is this correct?
If some of what you said is true, (which I’m sure it is) wouldn’t that make unprovoked attacks obsolete if all powers who are planning to attack, must declare war before doing so?
