Question about transports

Regarding the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the game, I place Japan control markers on those territories when I set the board up. It’s a big help for me when one of those is liberated and the Japan marker removed as, later on, I quickly know who controls it at a glance. If Japan re-captures it, I place the marker back.

the rules ensure that the TTs cant really do double duty that way (you can use them twice but its not faster) though it is fun to imagine bringing along an extra transport during the US cross to load up those brave, brave, no-combined arms Frenchies from North Africa.  Or brits.  The rules just make it too choppy to implement very well.

A much better exploit is

flying into the attack with fighters u moved 4
landing them planes on an allied carrier, then it moves 3
then it gets attacked, you help defend, it blows up, you move 1 more

you moved 8 spaces with a fighter and fought twice in 1 turn lol

Thank you ,too ghr2!

@Cow:

if you make a sub submerge, does it still convoy? I just kinda assumed it does.

You mean disrupt convoy?
Yes, it does. The decision to submerge is a decision for the Conduct Combat Phase only.
Physically it is removed from the battle strip and placed back on the map.
Convoy disruption takes place later in the Collect Income phase.

Another option, besides the CV buy, is to invest in bombers.

Do a strat. bomb on London G1 (with 2 bombers), and do another one with 2 + 2 on G2 (with a G1 buy of 2 bombers and whatever else your heart desires for 6 IPCs).

In my opinion, it’s the better option because once you’re through taking London, extra bombers are far more useful against the USSR than a carrier.

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

That’s my understanding as well.

@Zallomallo:

@Zcion:

Quick clarification:

in before mentioned case, UK income 8+5 from NO, 4 ger subs in sz109 and 1 in sz119.
would uk loose 8 or 10 ipc due to convoy disruption?

afaik you cant convoy disrup NO?

many thx
Zcion

Correct, disruption is capped by the surrounding territories’ income.

Well, it’s capped by the total value of each convoy zone’s adjacent spaces, which can technically exceed income collected from those territories.  But you’re correct in that disruption does not affect National Objectives or at least does not affect the 40 on West US.

However, I’m not certain of the timing of convoy vs objectives and whether convoy disruption affects total income after objectives are collected.  Convoys can only affect values of territories, but since they can exceed income you’d collect from territories (by the double dips similar to 109/119), I don’t know whether than can dig a little into objectives.  Based on the Pac40 west US errata, it would seem no but this is not specifically addressed by the errata, which clarified that WUS was not worth 40, it was only worth 10, and could only be blocked up to 10.

So, as long as britain is making an additional 2 ipcs income through other territories, if sz109 and sz119 are fully blocked, Britain will lose 10 ipcs (8 for 109 and 2 for 119).  If Britain is making less than 10 IPCs in income before national objectives, they collect 0 for those their territorial income, and then collect national objective ipcs.

However, it’s VERY rare indeed that the UK does not still collect from an african or canadian territory that would put its territorial income over 10, in which case, if sc109 and 119 are fully blocked, they lose 10 IPCS.

@Krieghund:

During your Collect Income phase, check for any convoy sea zones that are adjacent to territories that you control and that also contain warships (not transports) belonging to powers with which you are at war.  For each such sea zone, first add up the total IPC value of the adjacent territories that you control, giving you the maximum number of IPCs that you can lose in that zone.  Then, add up the total number of enemy warships (submarines count as two) to get your potential losses in that zone.  Finally, subtract whichever of those two numbers is lower from the income you collect.  Repeat this process for each eligible sea zone.

Example:  Italy controls Southern Italy, Northern Italy, Yugoslavia, and Albania, and there are two UK submarines in sea zone 97.  The total IPCs controlled by Italy adjacent to sea zone 97 is 10.  The two subs can destroy 4 IPCs.  Since 4 is less than 10 (the damage done is less than the maximum that the sea zone can sustain), Italy subtracts 4 IPCs from the income it collects.

but say, greece has 2 adjacent convoy zones, can greece lose 4 IPC?
i thought no, but not sure. wouldn’t be very logical
and what if german has greece and yugolavia, and US puts subs in adriatic sea. do they do convoy damage to germans and italians at same time?