Rules regarding submarines and planes

@morvill said in Submarine & Fighter attack, Fighter DD defense - Retreat Rules:

To me, it seems like because the 2 defending fighters have a valid target, that being the 1 attacking fighter, this condition is not met. And it does not specify “All units of a particular type”, so we can’t say the destroyer was “all units” in any sense. I don’t think I’ll see any disagreement on that. Thus, another round of combat will ensue unless the attacker chooses to retreat. The submarines cannot submerge at any other point than step 2 of the General Combat Sequence, thus for the subs to remain in the sea zone, another round of combat must persist, otherwise they must retreat “with” (the fighters remain the sea zone as part of their retreat) the fighter. Yet, if the attacker chooses to press, the subs do not have any valid targets for the next round of combat. Again, they could choose to submerge, but you could also surprise strike at “no units”, which to my knowledge is neither allowed nor disallowed by the rules, at least in this context.

Correct. It doesn’t matter whether or not all units on both sides have a valid target, only that at least one on each side does. If the attacker decides to press, all units will remain in the sea zone, even those that don’t have a valid target (the subs). If the attacker decides to retreat, all attacking units must retreat. As you say, the subs can submerge in the next combat round, but the only reason for them to do so would be so that they can remain in the sea zone if the attacker decides to retreat at the end of that round, as they are effectively out of the fight anyway.

Not sure if this is relevant, but per the rules:

Sea zones are either friendly or hostile. Friendly sea zones contain no surface warships (this doesn’t include submarines and transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war. Hostile sea zones contain surface warships belonging to a power with which you are at war. (The presence of a surface warship
belonging to a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war doesn’t make
a sea zone hostile.) pg. 8

The friendly/hostile state of the sea zone has no bearing on combat. That is relevant only to movement.

@Cernel said in Submarines v. anything that isn't a destroyer:

Here it is an example of the second case:
You have 1 submarine and 1 destroyer attacking 1 submarine alone. The attacking submarine hits.

Excellent example, indeed!

In Revised, the defending submarine fires back.

Correct. As by the rules "Both attacking and defending submarines fire in this [Opening Fire] step. If submarines are present on both sides, they are considered to fire simultaneously. "
The attacking destroyer does not affect the defending sub’s Sneak Attack ability.

In Global, the defending submarine doesn’t fire back.

Correct as the attacking destroyer cancels the defending submarine’s Surprise Strike ability.

@ShadowHAwk:

@P@nther:

If in a sea combat the defending submarine survives and destroys the attacking destroyer the transport may not unload, because the attacker failed to clear the seazone from enemy units. The attacker would most likely retreat his transport, then.

HTH :-)

Actualy if there was a sea combat it would continue untill there is only 1 side left in the combat.

You cannot ignore the sub halfway through the combat, you either ignore it or you dont. So in your example the transport MUST retreat or be sunk and therefore can never be near the intended landing zone. Unless the sub player submerges but why would anyone ever do that.

Sure, I did not say anything else. This situation is not a situation about ignoring submarines, after the first round of combat is over and the attacking destroyer has been destroyed. I talked about retreating, not about ignoring, then.

This situation is a situation where the attacker decides to retreat or not, following the retreat rules.
Most likely the attacker (transport) would retreat, for the reason you described.

Thanks, PainState, I thought that was how it went but wanted to make sure bringing in more assets was legit.

I know how to read, SH, I do it for a living.

I’ve played a lot of games, and since I’d played Axis and Allies before, I didn’t read the rules at all.  I was much more interested in playing a game, 90% of which was already familiar.  We consulted the rules when there was confusion, which was often.  Reading the rules in detail first might have been helpful, but it still didn’t answer most of the 10% of questions that come up as exceptions, nuances or rare situations, which is why I read these boards.    Sure there was plenty of slop and mistakes, but I admit when I’m wrong and try to do it correctly going forward.

First let me say sorry, Its Japanese
You are correct ItIsILeClerc, I miss read Krieg"s answer to my Kamikazi Question.
You’ll see my post in the one “heres a question”
Thanks again
S.A.
p.s. Just dont forget to use them

The Russian NO deals with originally pro-Axis territories, so true neutrals that switch do not count.

Japan sitting off of Hawaii is fine; there is a sea zone between SZ 26 and SZ 10.

@Stikato:

If an airbase becomes non-operational due to SBR, does that prevent scrambling on that turn? (Since SBR happens “first”)

In other words, if Germany was able to knock out the AB in the UK, and the UK saved their fighters for a naval battle in 110, could the UK scramble to protect 110 on that German turn?

Scrambling occurs before SBRs, so bombing a base won’t prevent scrambling in the same turn.