German Subs in the Atlantic

So happy to finally get the clarification on this. It’s been bugging me. As usual, it’s in the rulebook somewhere, just needed to find it!

@P@nther:

Just read the FAQ carefully. The scenarios are different.
Subs can never hit planes.
I think you refer to a case, where a fighter and a destroyer attack a sub and a cruiser.  Here both hits can (and must) be assigned legally. Sub hits destroyer and cruiser hits fighter.

In the above scenario there is only one hit that can be legally assigned - as subs never can hit planes.

Ah, I see.

@Uncrustable:

@Hobbes:

@Uncrustable:

The one thing i generally dont know when to do is build ICs in India and/or FIC .?
And what is the best way to move air from japan to germany? Carriers in the indian ocean ? Or FIC -> Egypt -> Europe. Most of my games Germany is not yet prepared to hold Ukraine on G3 so japan cant land its fighters there.

IC on FIC is less efficient than getting 4 transports for J to maximize usage of Japan’s starting IC and using 2 of those transports to bring units from Japan to FIC. 2 transports cost 14 IPC, carry 4 units, 1 IC costs 15 builds only 3.
India on the other hand should have a Japanese IC as quickly as possible, but without risking it to fall to an early Allied (Soviet) attack from Caucasus.
Air, depends on the situation. If you keep a carrier on SZ60 and another off Egypt you can move newly build fighters to Europe in 2 rounds. Bombers can be sent through Egypt or India (and if you build an IC on India then any J bombers built there can hit SZ5 on the next round), fighters India can reach Balkans or E. Europe  - really depends on the situation.

Yeah i agree. Thanks for all your help Hobbes ;)

Something else I remembered. Sometimes an IC on FIC is a good option if the Allies go KJF.
If the UK has built 1 IC on India on UK1 then Japan needs to focus everything on conquering it and it is a quicker way to place units on FIC than shipping them from Japan. However, there’s a risk that the Allies may conquer FIC instead and then its former IC will be used against Japan.
If the US go with a Pacific strat an IC on FIC may also be a good option since it allows to add additional ships/ground units for Japan away from the main battle.

its ALL counter-intuitive because generally speaking, if the attacking force doesn’t want to kill subs, they wouldn’t aim at subs  :lol:  I can’t think of any tactics that would force the attacker to dispatch the subs before the transports, but thems the rules.

If you want realism, man up and join the military  8-)

@coorran:

@Keredrex:

@football2006:

Just so I’m not second guessing myself, if there was a destroyer blocking you, you could still perform an amphibious assault if you aided the transport with fighters, right?

you can always make an amphibious assault with a transport… as long as the attacker wins whatever naval combat occurs in the SZ.  if a Destroyer and a transport attack a SZ for amp assault and there is an enemy destroyer there, combat occurs.  as long as the enemy is sunk, you can continue to amp assault the territory.  If its survives then your transports are sunk as they do not have any combat (or defense) roll.

Not true, the attacking TRN can retreat.

After the combat round is finished, yes it can retreat.

But there are a lot of weird situations: imagine there’s a SZ containing an enemy sub and a destroyer and that you send the transport to make a landing, along with 2 fighters to clear the SZ. Since the enemy sub can’t hit the planes if it rolls a hit on 1 you’ll have to remove the transport as a casualty.

Very Nice, props to u buddy

@nutbar:

Don’t focus on the US at all.

But what if the US focuses on you?  yeah there not a threat till a bit later but when they come you can’t ignore them