Anti-Aircraft Guns

should qualify the above statement with the caveat that you must still fulfill the kamikaze conditions…think that requires a sea combat be declared (1 japanese destroyer should work)

Thanks again for thinking about my question!

BH

@Spendo02:

@Krieghund:

The US cannot win this battle.  The fighters will continue to defend in the air until the battle is over.  The Japanese fighters and US subs can’t hit each other, so the fighters will sink transports until the US retreats.  If the US wishes to conduct this amphibious assault, it must bring units that are capable of hitting the fighters.

This is one of those unique situations where you are required to take Trn as losses before subs because that is all the unit can hit?

Yes.  They just need to be the only legal selection for a loss.  That might mean that planes have no other target (like this example), or that Sub hits have no other ship targets, or that the defenders hit everything else in a round of combat and need to assign some more hits before the defender retreats.  Remember, the defender still has the option to retreat, if they can, and transports are only automatically destroyed when they’re attacked, not when attacking (unless the attacker has no place to retreat).

reverse ur countries. were talking about germ attacking a rus blocker stack.(or italy)

@gsh34:

James,

Good thought experiment you have going on.  Most of the time doesn’t Germany fully commit to Sealion on G3 by either doing a direct G3 attack on London or landing is Scotland, right?  If that is the case, they can see that on R1 and R2 the Russians have only purchased naval units (meaning a theoretical 26 ground unit deficit vs. max defend build) why do Sealion?  On Italy round 2, you could use the Italian air force to clear the blocking Russian BB in the Baltic Sea and then amphibious assault Leningrad.  Without those R1 and R2 ground builds, I would think Russia would be relatively easier to take down.  Especially when done in conjunction with Japan doing a max push into Russia which is what I think I would be doing with them if I saw the Russian build naval forces en mass.

Just my thoughts on what I would do if Russia made the builds you describe.

I tend to agree, it would be easier to take Russia first, would that be dangerous leaving UK alive, if USSR provides them a fleet to protect their builds. That seems like it gives both US and UK quicker and stronger strikes against Europe then would otherwise occur. I suspect even with no real land unit builds until turn 3, that Moscow could hold until turn 6 or 7, maybe longer maybe not.

That gives the allies a 3 turn window of opportunity to get entrenched in Europe and put some heat on Berlin/Rome. Key to this opportunity will be whether USSR can knock down the German factory on W. Germany turn 4…That severely limits what the Germans can build in Europe for defense. I could see USA knocking it down turn 5 if recaptured, and UK grabbing it turn 6…etc. Keeping Germany with only 10 unit builds turns 5-8.

Oh well, its just a crazy Russian navy idea. Not sure I will ever try it. You are basically screaming, take me! take me!. Certainly a magnanimous move to spare the British player and allow him to play sea lion free. I’d like to be that nice guy.

That is exactly why I attack the Canadian tran/dest asw ell/ Summed up nice Jimmyhat.

@Krieghund:

Units belonging to other powers may not move into territories belonging to a neutral power.  The most recent alpha setup can be found here.

This is also the other way round, right? With the exception of sea units. And even then, the attacker could ignore the ‘neutral’ sea units if for example German launch naval attack on a UK fleet where there is also a neutral Russian or US ship.

@The:

If you oppenet selects the Cv as the OOL you always retreat and cost them the fighters it turns out better for you as you can then attack again especially if the Cv has one or two turns to take before it reaches a port

As the attacker yes, it’s great when your opponent takes the CV as a hit (and especially if they have nowhere to land the fighters).

As the defender, you don’t get the opportunity to retreat so if the attacker takes the CV as a hit, they still have more offense than they would if they lost a fighter (even if they end up losing all their fighters in the end, they have a greater chance of winning).

I guess it all depends on which side you’re on and how badly you want/need to win that naval battle.