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?
@Young:
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)
Yes.
@Young:
and must be done verbally or risk the inability to attack legally. Therefore forcing them to wait until their next turn. is this correct?
Technically, that’s correct. However, the purpose of declaring war at the beginning of the combat movement phase is simply to keep you from moving through units belonging to your new enemy to attack units beyond them. In practice, it’s OK to make a combat movement and then say, “Oh yeah, I declare war on you”, as long as all of your combat movements are legal under the premise that you declared war at the beginning of the phase.
@Young:
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?
Not at all. Provocation has nothing to do with attacking without declaring war.
A declaration of war is considered to be “provoked” under two conditions. The first is when the declaration is made in reaction to the direct aggression of another power. An example of this would be the United States declaring war on Japan after Japan has already declared war on the United States. (Such a declaration is technically unnecessary, as the two powers would already be at war.) The second condition is when a political rule allows the power to declare war due to a specific action being taken by another power. For example, the United States is allowed to declare war on any or all Axis powers if an Axis power declares war on it, so if Japan declares war on the United States, a subsequent declaration of war by United States on Germany would be considered provoked. A declaration of war under any other circumstances is considered to be “unprovoked”. (Note that a declaration enabled by a political rule that allows a power to declare war on any of its turns or on a specific turn is considered to be unprovoked, as this is a condition based on the passage of time rather than on a specific action taken by a power.)
Great answers as usual,
So for example: Just before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 2, they verbally declare war on the United Kingdom and attack the lone battleship that the UK failed to protect during its first turn. If that were the only attack Japan made that turn, technically they didn’t owe ANZAC or the United States a declaration of war, even though Japan understands that ANZAC and the United States are now eligible to declare war on Japan due to their actions. So before the combat move phases of the US and ANZAC in their turn 3 they declare war on Japan, and before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 4, they declare war on the US and ANZAC (even though its not necessary). In this scenario, what actions were provoked and what (if any) were unprovoked?
@Young:
So for example: Just before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 2, they verbally declare war on the United Kingdom and attack the lone battleship that the UK failed to protect during its first turn. If that were the only attack Japan made that turn, technically they didn’t owe ANZAC or the United States a declaration of war, even though Japan understands that ANZAC and the United States are now eligible to declare war on Japan due to their actions. So before the combat move phases of the US and ANZAC in their turn 3 they declare war on Japan, and before the combat move phase of Japan’s turn 4, they declare war on the US and ANZAC (even though its not necessary).
Almost. UK and ANZAC are tied together politically, so a declaration of war on one is a declaration on both, and a declaration by one is a declaration by both. So, at the end of its second turn Japan is at war with UK and ANZAC, and the US is eligible to declare war.
@Young:
In this scenario, what actions were provoked and what (if any) were unprovoked?
Japan’s declaration on UK/ANZAC was unprovoked, as there was no aggression by UK/ANZAC, and no action was taken by them that triggered a political rule allowing Japan to declare war on them. All other declarations were provoked. Japan took an action that triggered a political rule allowing the US to declare war on them (the unprovoked declaration against UK/ANZAC), and the other declarations were reactions to direct aggression.
Wonderbar, Thanks for your time.
I have a question about shore bombardment: Do the bombarding warships have to be in the SAME sea zone as the transports in an amphibious assault? OR, can they be in another sea zone that borders the territory being amphibiously assaulted?
In a game we were playing, Germany had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 115. Germany had 2 transports that carried inf & art from Finland to Novgorod in SZ 127. Both SZ 115 and SZ 127 are adjacent to Novgorod.
Later in the same game, UK had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 98 with transports landing forces from SZ 81 (the Red Sea) to attack Egypt.
Since in both cases, both sea zones bordered the territory in question, can the warships bombard that territory to support the landing troops? Or do the warships have to be in the same sea zone? I think it is the latter but I wanted to check for sure.
I have a question about shore bombardment: Do the bombarding warships have to be in the SAME sea zone as the transports in an amphibious assault? OR, can they be in another sea zone that borders the territory being amphibiously assaulted?
In a game we were playing, Germany had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 115. Germany had 2 transports that carried inf & art from Finland to Novgorod in SZ 127. Both SZ 115 and SZ 127 are adjacent to Novgorod.
Later in the same game, UK had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 98 with transports landing forces from SZ 81 (the Red Sea) to attack Egypt.Since in both cases, both sea zones bordered the territory in question, can the warships bombard that territory to support the landing troops? Or do the warships have to be in the same sea zone? I think it is the latter but I wanted to check for sure.
If they’re in another zone from which landing takes place, they’re not part of the amphibious assault and they can’t bombard.
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.
why would they need another warship to make it legal?
Few quick questions:
Sub against sub. If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?
Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport. Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?
Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives. It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?
Few quick questions:
Sub against sub. If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?
Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport. Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?
Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives. It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?
I think attacking sub gets pot shot, and I believe you loose shore bombardment if you engage the transport, also think planes die.
why would they need another warship to make it legal?
This is in the Alpha Rules.
Sub against sub. If the defender decides to submerge, does the attacker still get one first strike attack?
Amphibious assault from a sea zone that also contains an enemy transport. Can I use a sub/destroyer to kill the transport but have my battleship bombard from the same zone, even though there is technically combat in that zone?
Defending carrier in an open sea zone (no land nearby) takes one hit but survives. It’s planes auto-die even though they won the fight?
No.
No.
Yes.
So sub on sub “battles” are basically not going to happen?
So if there is a German sub at the Norway convoy zone, the Russian sub from Murmansk essentially cannott clear it out to regain the +5 NO bonus?
