Seazone 109 and 119

@TheDesertFox said in Can fighters scramble into a seazone later in the round if they already participated in another fight and had to land?:

If Italy used their 2 fighters to attack Greece and they moved them back to Italy, can they scramble those 2 fighters if the navy adjacent to Southern Italy is attacked?

Why not? The fighters’ attack takes place during Italy’s turn. When an enemy power attacks Southern Italy scrambling occurs as a defender’s move at the end of the attacker’s Combat Move Phase.

@Panther said in Can submarine go through a contested seazone?:

@AndrewAAGamer said in Can submarine go through a contested seazone?:

While Combat is considered simultaneous Combat Movement is not.

While you answered the scenario correctly, only the quoted sentence is not correct.
Page 12 Pacific 1940.2 rulebook says: “All combat movement is considered to take place at the same time.”
Here the submarines move from seazone A to C at the same time as the rest of the fleet moves from seazone A to B.

Than you Panther for pointing that out. Then perhaps I have been misusing a scenario. I will open a new thread not to hijack this one.

There is a special rondel shaped land-bridge that connects the non-island of Ireland to Scotland.  But, not in real life.  So you can drive across that, though why is a different question.

However, the Aleutian Islands are islands–you can’t drive there as I once allowed the crew to do.  Which makes it especially annoying for Japan to take, since it requires an amphib to regain your NO.  HTH

I think, that I would have scrambled with 3 fighters to SZ110 because of the lack of sub fodder and 1 fighter to SZ109.
In my turn I would have attacked the remaining sub(s) in SZ109 with SZ106 destroyer and air to prevent convoying.

Agree with GHG, the limitation there is because you spend so many resources and so much time building up as the USA, it just wouldn’t seem fair that you could just pick off his invasion force, which in some situations, the USA player can not replace for 2 turns or possibly, ever.      Of course, its still pretty much impossible to invade japan proper unless you are demolishing him economically and even then, it takes quite a bit of time to get the forces over there–however, japan is not the only place he can kami --how is it fair to let him kami a transport that’s coming into iwo jima to set up a US strongpoint there?

The true limitation of the kamikaze is that there are really only 4 units that can be hit by it; dd ca cv bb    (no subs, transports, or planes, so its a long list), and 2 of those things aren’t sunk by just 1 hit.

Carriers are the most vulnerable, but they don’t even have to come along, they can wait in the wings and all they bring to the battle is soak hits.

Plenty of times when the allies attack SZ 6 they do it with like 2-3 naval units and 10+ planes, so the kami isn’t effective alone in stopping him.

The reason to keep it around in Japan’s pocket is that it ruins his support shots, iirc

Its a fun flavorful rule but its just piling on because Japan doesn’t really need it in order to survive or thrive, and usually when you try to depend on it it fails miserably in a gigantic blaze of glory.  I say try n dump it (we do in G42 G41 at times)!

z119 is the correct location of scapa flow in the game because of range issues for german planes

YES I would certainly say so.

@Ruanek:

No.  All combat moves have to take place simultaneously before any combat is resolved.

Correct.

@Ruanek:

You could do it with a fleet of subs, though, if the enemy fleet had no destroyers.

You could move through the first sea zone with the subs to attack the second one, but you could not clear the first sea zone for surface ships to move through and attack the second one.

@Ruanek:

Edit: I think you could do it if the enemy only had subs and/or transports, because those can be ignored in the combat move phase.

True.  You could move surface ships through that sea zone whether or not other units were attacking the subs/transports there.