If you aren’t allowing a takeback on the USA combat move, the USA will have to retreat from the sub to avoid any further losses. One zone backwards, along the path at least one of the boats came.
This one is a little complex and I think I have it right but I want to make sure.
USA has 4 ftrs, 2 carrier, 1 transport that can make it to SZ 6 and 2 infantry to land on Japan.
Japan in Sea Zone 6 has 1 sub, 1 transport, 1 Destroyer
USA rolls 3 hits with his ftrs. Japan must select destroyer and transport. Sub is ineligible. This leaves a sub for Japan.
1. Now, USA cannot unload the transport (unless Japan for some reason submerges the sub), even though it is there with a combat ship and the only unit left is a sub, since a battle was started and eventually Japan would roll enough 1’s to kill all American ships?
Right. Going into the battle, there is no way the transport will be able to unload because the destroyer cannot be ignored and the sub cannot be destroyed. The Japanese player has no logical reason to submerge. (Unless they want to be taken over by the USA instead of ANZAC or UK or something :lol:)
2. Now, let’s say there is no destroyer in SZ and everything else is the same. Could USA then unload in Japan without going to battle? (My guess: Can unload)
You’re right, because the carrier works to escort the transport. Without the carriers, the sub would block the amphibious assault (unescorted transport).
3. If Japan scrambled 1 ftr? (My guess: Can’t unload)
Right. Fighter forces battle just as the destroyer in scenario #1, so sub is invincible and is in combat (can’t be ignored).
4. If Japan did a Kamikaze? (My guess: Can unload).
Kamikazes stop bombardment. I’m pretty sure (not 100%) a single kamikaze prevents the USA from ignoring the sub, meaning the land units will not be able to unload (again, because the sub in this scenario is invincible) because there is now combat. � But then, there IS a destroyer there in your game, so you don’t have to worry about this right now, do you?
Good point lol. USA had just creamed me in a Naval battle the turn before and wasn’t about to push his luck against the mainland, but both of us got confused about what he could have done.
Suppose a power is conducting an amphibious assault in a sea zone that contains the friendly Allied units (also at war with the target of the assault). If the enemy scrambles, do the ships belonging to the Allied power participate in the battle?
Suppose a power is conducting an amphibious assault in a sea zone that contains the friendly Allied units (also at war with the target of the assault). Â If the enemy scrambles, do the ships belonging to the Allied power participate in the battle?
No.
Why does Russia not start with a bomber? Why does the first national objective have 3 conditions to meet to get 5 ipc?
This thread is for answers to questions about how to apply the rules.
Larry Harris’ site is probably a better place to try and get answers to those questions. And it’s too late for it to make any difference…. Larry was asking for input like that over the last couple of years
But you could just keep doing what you’ve been doing – complaining about the Soviet Bomber on every thread. I’m sure that’ll work, too. :roll:
If you want a Soviet bomber, buy it on R1
The NO has 3 conditions because it has the same 2 as AA50 but he thought it didn’t make sense that the Germans couldn’t stop lend lease aid via the sea.
Basically, Larry wanted Russia to suck. Happy with the answer? :-)
Actually, Cow, I bought a Soviet bomber on R2 the only 2 Alpha3 games I’ve played so far, and both times it got shot down immediately on the first mission, and without doing any damage! (one SBR, another trying to fend off the Japs and hitting nothing)
I know, anecdotal evidence, but it’s funny :lol: Soviet bomber is apparently destined to be destroyed anyway, so Larry just tried to spare us the agony. You should be thanking him.
Actually, Cow, I bought a Soviet bomber on R2 the only 2 Alpha3 games I’ve played so far, and both times it got shot down immediately on the first mission, and without doing any damage! (one SBR, another trying to fend off the Japs and hitting nothing)
But Russia shouldn’t be doing bombing raids with that bomber at all!
It’s needed for offensive power together with INF & ART (instead of tanks who usually get killed off after they have taken a territory), combined with the superior range, necessary in such a large country.
For the price of 2 tanks you get a unit that (if used without too much risk) will last many turns.
Disagree. Bombing Germany’s forward complexes could be very effective when there are no other good targets. 50/50 chance of maximum 6 damage. Minimum 3 damage.
By the way, special forces, the second time my bomber was lost was 2 infantry and bomber vs. 3 forward Japanese infantry.
Round one whiff, he hits once. Round 2 (infantry is dead meat if it retreats anyway) I take the small chance that he won’t hit twice, he hits twice (I hit nothing). I suppose you’ll say I shouldn’t have made the attack, or shouldn’t have gone 2 rounds…
Effective A&A involves taking risks. If you don’t take risks, your opponent will quickly catch on and take advantage of that.
Anyway, we’re in the wrong forum. If we’re going to talk gameplay, we should get in a different thread. :-)
Yeah i know we were getting off-topic :)
It’s all Cow’s fault! :wink:
In order for russia to buy a bomber, it needs to start with 4 more infantry.
After taking India (and keeping it), Japan takes Wind, then UK takes it back.
Does UK receive IPCs for Wind ?
No. West India is part of Pacific map in the Alpha set up, so as long as you are not playing OOB, they cannot as they have no capital. They cannot collect Pacific income without India.
That’s what i thought.
Thanks.
:-)
Can the United Kingdom land planes in Greece during the first round of the game, if they transport a unit there in the non-combat phase?
@Young:
Can the United Kingdom land planes in Greece during the first round of the game, if they transport a unit there in the non-combat phase?
It would be just like conquering a new territory, except during the non-combat phase, so I would say no. But don’t hold me to it; I’m just trying to base it off my experience with other AA games.
