and im already wealthy and retired, and pointing out when others are incorrect is not being elitiest.
not an elitist, just an irritating snob and show off. jeez, its just a game. call the tigers whatever you want bud, im sure no one you play with will care.
Is convoy raiding mandatory?
Yes. If you don’t want to raid the convoy, you need to move your ship.
When a sub is attacked by a warship that is not a destroyer, may the sub submerge before combat begins? Also, may an attacking sub choose to retreat as oppose to submerge?
When a sub is attacked by a warship that is not a destroyer, may the sub submerge before combat begins? Also, may an attacking sub choose to retreat as oppose to submerge?
Yes.
Yes, but only if the rest of the navy retreats
I need some clarification on scrambling. Can fighters and tacs scramble from an island airbase if they would be the only units defending in the sea zone or must some naval vessel be present to initiate combat first? For example, can a fighter be scrambled against naked transports that are trying to do an amphibious assault against the island there by sinking them before the units could offload? If enemy units are passing through an air field sea zone during combat movement can fighters scramble to intercept them?
I need some clarification on scrambling. Can fighters and tacs scramble from an island airbase if they would be the only units defending in the sea zone or must some naval vessel be present to initiate combat first? For example, can a fighter be scrambled against naked transports that are trying to do an amphibious assault against the island there by sinking them before the units could offload? If enemy units are passing through an air field sea zone during combat movement can fighters scramble to intercept them?
Fighters and/or tacs may be the only defending units, yes. No naval units required. On top of that, a single fighter/tac can stop all bombardment by scrambling and forcing combat in the sea zone. A single kamikaze can do the same.
No scrambling against boats passing through. The sea zone with the island airbase must be the final destination of the combat move.
For example, can a fighter be scrambled against naked transports that are trying to do an amphibious assault against the island there by sinking them before the units could offload?
Yes, but the transports would not be automatically sunk. Since they can retreat, they are not defenseless. The fighter would get one shot against the transports before they could retreat. Of course, if they choose not to retreat, the fighter will sink them all eventually. Either way, there will be no amphibious assault.
Thanks for the answers. That one about getting a round to roll dice against naked transports is interesting. I don’t think it will ever come up now that I know fighters can be scrambled against naked transports though.
Ok, on to my next question. SZ6 surrounds Japan and borders Korea. If SZ6 had no Japanese naval units and the US did an amphibious attack on Korea, is Japan still allowed to scramble the fighters from Japan even though the combat is in Korea? My impression from the rule book and your previous clarification is that as long a combat movement ends in a SZ which contains an island with an airfield, the fighters can be scrambled for defense no matter where the amphibious attack would be. Correct?
We had a Convoy raid question last night and I want make sure we have this right. For example, take SZ37 which borders UK Malaya (3 ipc) and UK Shan State (1 ipc). Japan puts two subs in SZ37. That would result in a loss of 4ipc because it is the sea zone that is attacked and not the individual territories being raided. That is what we ruled. However, we also saw the point of view (a la an amphibious assault) that the raid may have to be split between the two territories. Then only 3ipc would be raided, not the total 4. That is not how we read the rules though.
SZ6 surrounds Japan and borders Korea. If SZ6 had no Japanese naval units and the US did an amphibious attack on Korea, is Japan still allowed to scramble the fighters from Japan even though the combat is in Korea? My impression from the rule book and your previous clarification is that as long a combat movement ends in a SZ which contains an island with an airfield, the fighters can be scrambled for defense no matter where the amphibious attack would be. Correct?
Correct.
We had a Convoy raid question last night and I want make sure we have this right. For example, take SZ37 which borders UK Malaya (3 ipc) and UK Shan State (1 ipc). Japan puts two subs in SZ37. That would result in a loss of 4ipc because it is the sea zone that is attacked and not the individual territories being raided. That is what we ruled. However, we also saw the point of view (a la an amphibious assault) that the raid may have to be split between the two territories. Then only 3ipc would be raided, not the total 4. That is not how we read the rules though.
You played it correctly.
Is it true that AA guns no longer fire at passing enemy aircraft, but only at the enemy air units in the territory being attacked?
For example, If an air unit has to fly over a territory with an AA gun to reach the destination they wish to attack (whether SBR or normal attack) and then have to fly back over that same territory again on the way home would the AA gun fire at all? I feel as though in previous editions it did, and our group has played it that way, so in the above example, if it was a ABR, the bomber would have to face 3 AA shots, but after reading the Euro rule book closely, it seems that AA guns only ever fire in the combat they’re in. :| This is sad, as it makes it harder for Germany to defend against bomber american strats, but I just wanted to be clear.
Is it true that AA guns no longer fire at passing enemy aircraft, but only at the enemy air units in the territory being attacked?
For example, If an air unit has to fly over a territory with an AA gun to reach the destination they wish to attack (whether SBR or normal attack) and then have to fly back over that same territory again on the way home would the AA gun fire at all? I feel as though in previous editions it did, and our group has played it that way, so in the above example, if it was a ABR, the bomber would have to face 3 AA shots, but after reading the Euro rule book closely, it seems that AA guns only ever fire in the combat they’re in. :| This is sad, as it makes it harder for Germany to defend against bomber american strats, but I just wanted to be clear.
It’s true. AA flyover rules were revised in AA50, carried over to 1942 and the AA40s.
If AA fired at a strat bomber 3 times as per your example, strat bombing runs would be out of the question. And then if you’re playing with radar…… sheesh.
But AA of facilities only fires for SBR’s - not the AA gun units. If you understood this, I don’t think you’d have that question (about whether only destination AA fires). You guys realize that AA gun units only fire when military units are being attacked by air, right?
A british sub can pass through the Danish straits (held by Germany)?
A Russian sub can pass through the “” “” though Russia isn’t at war with Germany (i thik that Russian player would ask the permission)?
1) No. Only the strait of Gibraltar allows submarine movement when held by the enemy.
2) Other than at Gibraltar, subs must obey the same rules as surface ships in canals and narrow straits.
Is convoy raiding mandatory or can you decide not to do a raid if you’re about to capture a capital?
It is mandatory.
If Convoy Raiding is mandatory, then you saying that a German sub off the coast of the US is a declaration of war against the US, or ie, that Germany is not allowed to be in that sea zone because it would result in a declaration of war? Same would go for Japan being off the coast of Malaya then…?
I see it mentioned in the P40 FAQ, but I may be missing it in the E40 rulebook, or at least spelled out, but the US is not allowed to land ground units or fly air units in/over the USSR prior to being at war with the Axis, correct?
If Convoy Raiding is mandatory, then you saying that a German sub off the coast of the US is a declaration of war against the US, or ie, that Germany is not allowed to be in that sea zone because it would result in a declaration of war? Same would go for Japan being off the coast of Malaya then…?
I see it mentioned in the P40 FAQ, but I may be missing it in the E40 rulebook, or at least spelled out, but the US is not allowed to land ground units or fly air units in/over the USSR prior to being at war with the Axis, correct?
Convoy raiding is only mandatory after you’ve declared war and a declaration of war is required if you want to do convoy disruption. If you haven’t declared war on the respective power, you can park as many units off their coast as you want.
If Convoy Raiding is mandatory, then you saying that a German sub off the coast of the US is a declaration of war against the US, or ie, that Germany is not allowed to be in that sea zone because it would result in a declaration of war? Same would go for Japan being off the coast of Malaya then…?
Actions don’t result in declarations of war - declarations of war allow actions. If Germany is not at war with the US, a German sub off the US coast does nothing, as powers must be at war in order to conduct convoy raids.
I see it mentioned in the P40 FAQ, but I may be missing it in the E40 rulebook, or at least spelled out, but the US is not allowed to land ground units or fly air units in/over the USSR prior to being at war with the Axis, correct?
Correct. It’s in the sidebar on page 15.
