@aequitas:
You guys rock and i would never expect less from you, then your great support everytime.
The problem is also solved.
My AB was overlooked by the opponent :-D.Who builds an airbase in that Cambodian jungle :P
ME!
It is not that obvious and hidden. Good for surprise attacks.
Well, I guess it was the frontier for the Japanese in this situation!!
I am joking guys :lol:
First off…damn there is a lot of redundant q & a in this thread. Can we clean up some? Just a thought.
China can noncom into UKs burma territory because china is @ war with japan and UK is @ war with germany.
If US & russia @ war with japan but not ger, us can non com in pac map of rus but not europe map. These seem contradictory.
If us @ war with japan and rus @ war with germany, can us non com every where in russia?
Thanx for the answers guys. I finally finished all 156 pages.
First off…damn there is a lot of redundant q & a in this thread. Can we clean up some? Just a thought.
That’s been done. There’s nothing here that’s not either in the rules or the official FAQs.
China can noncom into UKs burma territory because china is @ war with japan and UK is @ war with germany.
If US & russia @ war with japan but not ger, us can non com in pac map of rus but not europe map. These seem contradictory.
Not really. The Soviet Union has special rules due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan. If it’s at war with Germany/Italy but not Japan, it’s still treated as a neutral power on the Pacific map, and vice versa. See page 36 of the Europe Rulebook.
If us @ war with japan and rus @ war with germany, can us non com every where in russia?
No. If the USSR is not at war with Japan, it is still treated as a neutral power on the Pacific map, so no other power may move units into its territories there. The US, being no longer neutral, may however move units into Soviet territories on the Europe map, as the USSR is no longer neutral there. The key is that in order for a power to move units into the territory of another power, neither power must be neutral. The US isn’t neutral if it’s at war with anyone, but the USSR has the special conditions I mentioned above.
Sorry if this has been asked before. I blame the search function.
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?
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)
Reasoning behind this question: if USA does not send the battleship, the transports would be unescorted and USA cannot ignore the subs in SZ6. If USA does send the battleship, the subs do not prevent unloading. Furthermore, USA may ignore the subs. But what do kamikaze tokens do - do they ‘create’ a Combat Phase, pulling in the subs as well?
EDIT: added question.
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.
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!
