Air Units attacking Subs

Yes, if America decides to try and move through SZ 60 with those ships in the combat movement phase, they will have to stop and engage the defending enemies.  However, if you clear them out and then try to move your ships through on non-combat they can sail through.

@axis_roll:

@Krieghund:

In LHTR, the attacker’s choice to retreat is made before the defender’s choice is made to submerge.  In the box rules, the choices are made simultaneously.

how does THAT work?

Not very well.

@axis_roll:

Do you each write down your attack/withdraw perogative on paper and show it at the same time… I mean, how ELSE could you do it simultaneously?

That’s about the only way I can think of.  As TimTheEnchanter pointed out, this is an ambiguity in the rules.  There is no FAQ entry, and as far as I know no “official” ruling on this, and that’s why I answered the way I did.  My personal inclination would be to follow the “natural” order of things and let the attacker decide first, as in LHTR.  If anyone cares enough, I can ask Larry Harris, though I suspect his answer would agree with LHTR (for obvious reasons).  Just one more reason to use LHTR rather than the OOB rules.

Just FYI the non-graduating C1C convertions to active military as E-6 are not enlistments, so they would be exempt from that rule.

@ncscswitch:

You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…

**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**  …

Go ahead, play test it a few times.  You will quickly see what I mean.

Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

Thank you for the update Craig.

I just referenced the new 1.3 version in answer to a question in our Tournament (new the result, if not the specific language)

Thank you!

It really depends on the situation. CVs are good at defending SZs and allowing transports to pass through, but poor at attacking convoys/fleets. Good in a forced battle, such as in landing on the enemy coast, where he has to attack you to protect his country. Plus, the fighters can fly to the mainland in an emergency and assist in landings. BBs can be helpful in attacking the enemy fleet for 1 round, using them to soak hits, then retreating (and repairing). SSs are the most efficient in a win-or-die naval(only) scenario, but can be attacked by aircraft with no chance to fire back. I would only use SSs to hassle convoys by not letting them load/unload, and then using them to soak hits. DDs both attack and defend on 3, so they are versatile in both defending a SZ and attacking one, but I wouldn’t build them if I had something specific in mind.

But really, you can’t ask that question without TPs. An analysis of a naval battle without TPs is useless, really, because why have a navy if no TPs are involved at all? It’s necessary to take into account that 1 attack that hits both air and sea for 8 IPC, after unloading troops. It’s also necessary to understand that if one has been substalled, then using transports to take hits doesn’t become efficient.

My 2 cents, AK

Ok thanks for the info TRIHERO.

I hate it, theres too many rules hurting the attacker, the attacker has the initiative, and theoretically wins.