1st Edition Question

@nolimit said in defending Sub question:

@commander-jeff 2, they retreat to One sz Area wherever any of the Transports came from- also the Units stay on the Transports!

To elaborate on this, the transports may retreat to a sea zone from which any of the original attacking sea units entered, so if the destroyer and/or sub actually entered from a different direction than the transports, that sea zone would also be valid for the retreat.

Also, if none of the sea zones from which any of the attacking units entered were friendly (they all started in enemy-occupied zones) or all of the attacking units were already in the contested sea zone to start with, no retreat would be possible and the transports would be automatically destroyed. Of course, in the latter case the attacking units could combat move out of the sea zone and then back in in order to establish a retreat route, assuming there were an adjacent friendly sea zone.

@mikemikemike
the sea battle occurs before the amphibious assualt.

If you want to kill the transport… in a (very one-sided) naval battle, all naval units fight together+any air. You don’t get to pick units. Only air has that option.

Thus, no bombard.

@shadowhawk

Easier said than done though.

Right off the bat Germany will be consistently making more money than both Britain and the Soviet Union having taken out the rest of Europe and thats before they start attacking the Soviet Union.

Keeping the income advantage really only rests on America since the only change in their income will be losing the Philippines islands, as for everybody else, they can expect their IPC count to plummet with the combined strength of the Germans and Italians.

Also, like I said, taking Rome and Berlin is on the table to accomplish, taking Tokyo however not so much since A) it’s on an island B) It’s gonna have lot’s of dudes on it and C) the Pacific is too big to build any assortment of floating bridge and would be too expensive, hence why we would end the game if Japan is limited to their home island plus maybe Korea since they’re pretty much dead in the water so there is no point in playing any further.

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

Ah never mind my previous comments, Kriegshund has it correct. There’s a special rule just for this scenario:

“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory
from an ally’s transport, but only on the turn of
the attacking land unit’s owner.  All of the normal
requirements for transports offloading in a sea
zone must still be met by the attacking power (see
“Special Combat Movement, Transports”, page 16),
and any scrambled air units will prevent the landing
if they cannot be destroyed”

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf (page 21)

On page 16 it permits a scramble to resist amphibious attacks:

“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones”

Unfortunately it’s not clear in the rules, but that’s been corrected in the second edition.  The same principle applies to destoyers cancelling submarines’ abilities - once the destroyers are gone, the subs regain their abilities in the next combat round.

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

@calvinhobbesliker:

Actually, they will die. The procedure for aircraft retreat is different from sea or land retreat: the air units break off and land anywhere withing their remaining range. Since the plane had zero movement points left, it dies if you retreat

Correct.