Thank you Krieghund, excellent answer as always. :-)
Cheers,
Ozy
Is there any possibility of an official rules update to close loopholes and improve things? Perhaps some small changes to rebalance towards the allies? My list would be:
I suppose all of those things can be house ruled.
There’s probably a few more things but it seems the thing most people are interested in is game balance. The SBR change will help with that, but only a little. I’m inclined to think a bid is fair enough to resolve balance. Maybe allied play will advance and reduce bids.
Similar question as above. USA has a destroyer and a sub in 110. Germany attacks with 1 carrier and a bunch of planes and loaded transports. Is the amphibious landing on London allowed when the destroyer is dead while the sub is still there? Based on the sz 6 question above I assume yes, but not sure.
Sorry if this has been asked before. I blame the search function.
Use the Search function in the toolbar. The Google Search is next to useless.
Japan has a couple of subs in SZ6 around Japan; all its kamikaze tokens still in play. USA has a battleship and some transports in range.
Question 1: if USA sends its transports+battleship in an amphibious against Japan (the island itself), will the subs participate in a sea battle if the Japanese player spends 1 kamikaze token?Not if the USA player chose to ignore the subs. Kamikaze strikes by themselves don’t create a battle. (They occur before any battles.)
Question 2: if Japan uses all kamikaze tokens against the battleship and destroys it, would there still be an amphibious landing? (regardless of the subs)
Yes. The battleship was in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase, which fulfills the conditions for ignoring the subs (Kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Combat phase). Since there was no battle, the subs aren’t pulled in, and there is nothing to prevent the landing.
So Japan can not prevent allied landing on Japan with subs and kamikazes only (in the case allies have surface warships). Japan has to have surface warships or air?
Similar question as above. USA has a destroyer and a sub in 110. Germany attacks with 1 carrier and a bunch of planes and loaded transports. Is the amphibious landing on London allowed when the destroyer is dead while the sub is still there? Based on the sz 6 question above I assume yes, but not sure.
Such a landing could never succeed. Sub will keep rolling until either
(a) both the carrier and the transports are destroyed
(b) attacker retreats
Is there any possibility of an official rules update to close loopholes and improve things? Perhaps some small changes to rebalance towards the allies?
Probably not.
Similar question as above. USA has a destroyer and a sub in 110. Germany attacks with 1 carrier and a bunch of planes and loaded transports. Is the amphibious landing on London allowed when the destroyer is dead while the sub is still there? Based on the sz 6 question above I assume yes, but not sure.
No. This is a different situation. In Ozymandiac’s example, the sub was alone (no surface warships or air units), so it could be ignored. In your example, there was a destroyer, so the sub couldn’t be ignored and a battle ensued. Once drawn into battle, subs can’t be ignored (unless they submerge). See simon33’s post above.
So Japan can not prevent allied landing on Japan with subs and kamikazes only (in the case allies have surface warships). Japan has to have surface warships or air?
Correct.
excately what is the difference:
1. USA attacks Japan with a battleship and a bunch of transports. Japan has a sub in sz 6 and uses all kamikaze tokens on the battleship amd destroys the big boy. In this situation the amphbious assault is allowed, even with the japan sub remaining
2. In sea sone 110 USA has a destroyer and a sub. Germany attacks with a carrier and a bunch of planes. destroyer is destroyed but in this case an amphibious landing on London is not allowed
excately what is the difference:
1. USA attacks Japan with a battleship and a bunch of transports. Japan has a sub in sz 6 and uses all kamikaze tokens on the battleship amd destroys the big boy. In this situation the amphbious assault is allowed, even with the japan sub remaining
2. In sea sone 110 USA has a destroyer and a sub. Germany attacks with a carrier and a bunch of planes. destroyer is destroyed but in this case an amphibious landing on London is not allowed
In 1. there is no sea battle because the defender’s sub can be ignored. The Kamikaze Strike does not initiate a sea battle. The amphibious assault can take place without a sea battle.
In 2. there is a sea battle. Germany cannot ignore the sub. The sub is part of the sea battle and cannot be removed by the attacker. So the attacker cannot clear the seazone and cannot win the sea battle - this prevents the amphibious assault.
@P@nther:
excately what is the difference:
1. USA attacks Japan with a battleship and a bunch of transports. Japan has a sub in sz 6 and uses all kamikaze tokens on the battleship amd destroys the big boy. In this situation the amphbious assault is allowed, even with the japan sub remaining
2. In sea sone 110 USA has a destroyer and a sub. Germany attacks with a carrier and a bunch of planes. destroyer is destroyed but in this case an amphibious landing on London is not allowed
In 1. there is no sea battle because the defender’s sub can be ignored. The Kamikaze Strike does not initiate a sea battle. The amphibious assault can take place without a sea battle.
In 2. there is a sea battle. Germany cannot ignore the sub. The sub is part of the sea battle and cannot be removed by the attacker. So the attacker cannot clear the seazone and cannot win the sea battle - this prevents the amphibious assault.
Sorry, I don’t think this makes any sense. The argument in the sz 6 example is that the landing is allowed because no sea battle occurred. But an unescorted transport can not make an amphibious assault in a sea sone with an unfriendly sub. I don’t see how this answered my question.
Ahhhh. Got it, never mind
@P@nther:
excately what is the difference:
1. USA attacks Japan with a battleship and a bunch of transports. Japan has a sub in sz 6 and uses all kamikaze tokens on the battleship amd destroys the big boy. In this situation the amphbious assault is allowed, even with the japan sub remaining
2. In sea sone 110 USA has a destroyer and a sub. Germany attacks with a carrier and a bunch of planes. destroyer is destroyed but in this case an amphibious landing on London is not allowed
In 1. there is no sea battle because the defender’s sub can be ignored. The Kamikaze Strike does not initiate a sea battle. The amphibious assault can take place without a sea battle.
In 2. there is a sea battle. Germany cannot ignore the sub. The sub is part of the sea battle and cannot be removed by the attacker. So the attacker cannot clear the seazone and cannot win the sea battle - this prevents the amphibious assault.
Sorry, I don’t think this makes any sense. The argument in the sz 6 example is that the landing is allowed because no sea battle occurred. But an unescorted transport can not make an amphibious assault in a sea sone with an unfriendly sub. I don’t see how this answered my question.
I am glad you got it.
Just to explain it for other readers:
@rulebook:
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at
least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.
At the end of the discussed Combat Move Phase the transports had been escorted by a battleship. That matches the requirement for a later unload.
Ahhhh. Got it, never mind
No, I don’t get it after all. This means that kamikaze strikes prevents sea battles. Why isn’t there a sea battle in sea sone 6 after the Kamikaze strikes? After all a sub prevents an amphibious landing.
Now I got it I think. Thanks!
I suppose an argument could be made about whether the rules should allow this, but it’s not the biggest issue with the current rule set.
Japan builds a minor complex on Kwangtung.
India falls to Japan and stays in Japanese hands.
China takes Kwangtung from the Japanese and places it’s roundel there since India belongs to Japan.
Question; What happens to the minor complex?
I thought that the complex would be removed, but now after rereading the rules I’m not convinced that this is the case. The rules state that a complex is removed from Chinese territory, it doesn’t say anything about Kwangtung who they are allowed to occupy. Elsewhere in the book it says that complexes can’t be destroyed.
Although I haven’t been long with AA community and a total newbie, my humble opinion…
In my perspective this is now Chinese territory (as long as Calcutta is in Axis) hands and therefore normally subject to page 21,
“If the original controller’s (the power whose territory you just liberated) capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory instead. You adjust your national production level, and you can use any industrial complex, air base, and/or naval base there until the original controller’s capital is liberated. The capturing player can’t use these newly captured facilities until the player’s next turn.”
However, China is not an Industrialized nation, and have a special rule set applied! Any other nation could benefit from this paragraph, and make use of the complex…the opposite is true regarding China in my opinion.
Page 10 states the following; “If a Japanese industrial complex is built on a Chinese TERRITORY and that territory is later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”
A Chinese territory cannot hold an IC, irrespective of former ownership, as I see the rules.😊
Nice video on China by the way….General…👍
Page 10 states the following; “If a Japanese industrial complex is built on a Chinese TERRITORY and that territory is later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.”
They must b referring to the og chinese territories or else the rules would have included the uk territorries by name. Further…it was captured, not “built on a chinese territory” as the rule states.
I think this comparable to a situation where Japan has build a minor complex in Kiangsu. Now when this is recaptured by the Chinese, it is by definition Chinese territory. So is Kwangtung…as long as Calcutta is held by the Axis. It is NOT possible for the Chinese to run an IC in a Chinese territory. Think of it as missing “know how”… it woulden’t make sense they know how to run an industry in Kwangtung, but not in Kiangsu.
