Can a damaged carrier keep attacking in round 2 of the sea battle in an amphibious assault?

I saw that pocket square early on, but the problem with it is that you may still need every guy on London to make sure its safe, even 1 mech.  Sometimes I cant even attack Scotland, if they stacked it, because you cant take Scotland and still ensure they can’t destroy London…that’s where SL gets tricky.

To call Ireland Pro-Allied, that’s the historical inaccuracy…

Thank you guys. I thought it was legal the only thing that was tripping me up was the whole we don’t own the sea zone before the turn but you can’t own a sea zone so it is fine to land on a carrier that has taken a sea zone. Or that is my understanding. Thanks again for the info. It was one thing I was not sure on.

You do not need to clear a seazone before an amphibious assault if the seazone you are unloading into has only enemy transports or submarines.  In the case of submarines you must have a warship (Carrier, Destroyer, Battleship or Cruiser) escorting the transport so you can IGNORE the submarine before the amphibious assault begins.

The carrier fires back as long as it isn’t sunk.

Thanks for the post, Frank.  Yep, you pretty much summed up a few of the many reasons why OOB is fatally flawed, and you have the 30-35 games to back it up.

I get the feeling from my few games of Alpha2 so far (not going too crazy playing it - just a couple games at a time because it will probably be changed anyway) that the Allies still have a significant advantage in Alpha2.  But I have to admit none of the games have lasted even more than a few rounds (with the Axis getting obliterated each time) so maybe those oil field NO’s could really come into play sometimes I suppose.

To me, Russia and USA have suffocating power (Russia is very deep, and as Larry himself acknowledged - he wondered if it was 1 territory too deep), and the UK can be very powerful as well.

If the med is clear you could also dump it into Africa to make sure its taken by the axis…just a thought haven’t played the axis yet in global though.

@anderb:

attackung true neutrals is plain stupid. best way to lose a game.

:-D

mine was only a question of “if I were to attack as I do …” neutral attack is inconvenient for both sides, especially because the axis has no men to cover additional fronts … this is clear.

Your understanding is correct, MarkVIIIMarc.  However, in scenario 2 the UK player has no casualty options that won’t result in stranding the fighter.  Since sub hits must be taken on sea units, the only casualty options are the one you chose or taking both hits on the carrier, dooming both fighters.  At any rate, taking the hit on the carrier and stranding the fighter is always an option.