@simon33:

With Q5, in the event that Britain still attacks, whether or not Britain provides forces to attempt to clear SZ95 the American transports are not destroyed even if there are extra hits left over, but the assault does not proceed. There needs to be an actual scramble to stop the assault - this is important if you want the plane to do something else, like scrambling to SZ97 or intercepting.

So in this case, if Southern Italy were defended by nothing but a single fighter and the allies had 1 transport in SZ95 and 1 transport in SZ97, Italy would have to decide between 3 options:

1. Scramble to SZ95, letting Southern Italy get captured by the British troops invading from SZ97 (and the fighter could land in Northern Italy)
2. Scramble to SZ97, letting Southern Italy get captured by the British troops invading from SZ95 (and the fighter could land in Northern Italy)
3. Defend the land battle and hope 1 fighter can kill whatever is loaded on the two transports.

So, if the U.S. transport were loaded with ANZAC or French (lol) units and Italy purchased and deployed a boat in that sea zone, then the ANZAC units could not conduct the amphibious assault even without Italy scrambling due to ANZAC not being able to clear the boats from the sea zone, correct?

Looking for a few clarifications with regards to using an allied nations transports.

Question 1: On America Turn N, America moved loaded transports from SZ91 to SZ110 and conducted an amphibious assault on Normandy, leaving empty transports in SZ110 at the end of its turn.  How quickly can Great Britain get its ground units to Normandy via the American transports?

My current understanding is that British troops can be loaded on Great Britain Turn N, and subsequently unloaded on Great Britain Turn N+1, requiring America to leave the transports where Britain wants to unload from on America’s Turn N+1.

Question 2: This question is about your own troops on your own transports, but I want to be sure to clarify something before question 3.  A nation moves transports with no friendly warships into a completely empty sea zone with intentions of conducting an amphibious assault.  The enemy nation has a territory with an airbase touching this sea zone.  Is the enemy able to scramble planes to attempt killing the transport?  Question 3: Does it matter if the amphibious assault is targeting the territory holding the airbase or not?

I hope the answer to Question 2 is yes (and question 3 is no).  My current understanding is that it is, but more importantly my group has been playing with the rules this way for a little while and I hope we’ve been right all this time.

Question 4: This is the question where I’m most unsure.  America has some number of transports sitting in SZ91.  They are loaded with British troops.  On America’s turn these transports move to SZ95.  Is Great Britain able to unload its troops from America’s transports into an enemy territory (Northern or Southern Italy) in order to attack it?  Question 5: Assuming they can, are any Italian planes allowed to scramble?

I’m not sure how I feel about Question 5 in particular.  It seems like the answer to Question 4 is probably yes, but I may be surprised.  However, it seems weird to allow a situation where a British action on Britain’s turn could result in American units dying on Britain’s turn.  Granted, if there are any planes or boats in range of SZ95 on Italy or Germany’s turns, the transports effectively die for free then anyway, but there’s quite a big difference between them dying before or after their cargo has had a chance to unload and potentially take a territory.

And as a more general question…

If a fighter from Scotland scrambles into 109, I believe it can land in United Kingdom if Scotland is captured.  However, if Scotland is not captured, could the fighter which scrambled from Scotland into SZ109 still choose to land in the United Kingdom?

Similiar-ish to above:

Germany has two transports starting from sea zone 112.  They each load ground units.  One moves to SZ 111 and the other to SZ 119.  UK has just 1 fighter in Scotland, which it scrambles.  Ireland is still neutral.

In this scenario, I assume the following:

1. The fighter chooses exactly one sea zone to scramble into.

2. The fighter destroys the transport in that sea zone.

3. The other transport drops off its land units in Scotland and captures it (wins combat against 0 defenders).

4. At the end of combat, the UK fighter is destroyed.  Only Scotland borders SZ111 and that has just been captured by Germany.  Scotland and Ireland border SZ119, but the fighter can’t land in either of those squares.

5. As an additional assumption, if Germany also deployed to SZ109, the fighter from Scotland could scramble into 109, and then even if Scotland is captured, the UK fighter could land in London.

America has a fighter and air base on Guam. Japan sends one transport with one infantry and one artillery into the surrounding sea zone to conduct an amphibious assault. A Japanese fighter joins them.

1. Am I correct that during the combat move phase Japan must declare whether the fighter is staying in the sea zone to defend a possible scramble or joining the land battle in Guam?

2. Am I correct that America can scramble to defend against the amphibious assault despite there being no sea battle in the zone?

3. If there were not an amphibious assault, would America still be able to scramble?

4. If my first two assumptions are correct, what happens in the scenario in which Japan commits its plane to the land battle and America scrambles? My assumption is the transport and it’s cargo are destroyed for free, the Japanese fighter conducts land battle against no defending units and wins, the territory is not captured due to Japan having no available land units. At the end of combat, America’s scrambled fighter freely lands back on Guam, and the Japanese plane must find a place to land.

The question and the first post have a slight incongruency.  The real question for the scenario in your first post is probably something more like…. is it wise for the allies to go all-in in the Pacific, only to lose the game in Europe?

The main advantage I see to the allies breaking the the lend lease to land in Russia in the Pacific side is the distance between Hawaii/Guam/Philippines and Russia.  American bombers can be produced one turn, in Hawaii the next turn, and then fighting in SZ6 and landing in Russia the next turn.  Without landing in Russia, those bombers would have to wait one additional turn to rebase to Guam, so they can take off from Guam, fight in SZ6, then go land back in Guam.  But once in Guam, all they can do is fight in SZ6 again next turn.  American bombers in Amur, Siberia, or Soviet Far East could start doing strategic bombing raids on Tokyo.

Additionally, using Guam as a base allows British & ANZAC fighters & tactical bombers to rebase to Guam, then go fight in SZ6 followed by landing in Russia.  America doesn’t need to use this tactic so much because they are likely to bringing carriers, allowing their small planes to mostly land wherever, however ANZAC & UKPac are unlikely to be burning money on carriers, so being able to land planes in Russia can be useful for attacks on the Japanese navy in SZ6 or even on Japanese land units in Korea.

Consider the case where Japan has left SZ6 particularly exposed, but Tokyo itself is pretty well defended with plenty of AA, and infantry, making a mainland attack not really an option… but Japan overlooked defending Korea so heavily.  America’s navy doesn’t like its odds against what DOES exist of the Japanese navy in SZ6.  They’re in America’s favor, but America would have to risk transports ready to capture Korea.  But America has 3 strategic bombers in Hawaii that could really swing the advantage in America’s favor.  They can’t land in Korea because America will just be capturing it this turn, so Russia gives America permission.  With the help of the strategic bombers, which will ultimately land in Russia, America wipes out Japan’s SZ6 navy (barely… nothing is left of either navy in the sea zone) and captures Korea.  On ANZAC’s turn, they fly 3 fighters from Guam to Korea.  On Russia’s turn, they move 6 infantry & 2 AA into Korea.  Is stuck and doesn’t have great options on their turn, and they’re particularly mad because they know on America’s next turn, Korea will have a mIC, naval base, and air base, and an American aircraft carrier with two fighters is in Hawaii ready to turn up in Korea to reinforce further.

… buuuuuut… if all this is happening while Moscow is falling, it’s not so great.  It doesn’t impact UK & ANZAC options.  ANZAC may still have built a strategic bomber or two somehow, and would like to base them in Russia in order to do regular bombing runs on Tokyo.  But if America is spending all of its money in the Pacific allowing Germany to steamroll through western Russia, then it is probably America’s purchase choices that lost the game, not Russia losing out on 5 ipc per turn.  5 ipc per turn isn’t going to make the difference between stopping Germany or not from taking Moscow if the allies aren’t helping you anyway.

And the German player can easily shut down that bonus anyway by simply parking a submarine in SZ125.  Germany should have cleared out the UK home fleet on turn 1, leaving UK with nothing in range for several turns (and probably more important things to do with its navy anyway).  The Soviet Union doesn’t have a destroyer, and purchasing a destroyer instead of almost 3 more infantry is probably losing for Russia anyway (you will be spending 8ipc to hopefully kill a sub to get a 5ipc bonus back…and your destroyer won’t do much else… Germany can just ignore it.  It only takes 2 turns after the sub is dead to pay off the destroyer, but you’ve gone one turn with 8ipc less worth of units that could defend Moscow).  The only way America is going out of their way to kill that sub is if they’re planning on taking Norway and building a factory there… which is an option… but then you’re winning the game because America has a European factory, not because Russia is getting 5 more ipc.  A lot of those America units are probably walking through Russia killing your bonus anyway.

Really though… Russia would probably like the UK to kill its bonus by lending some actual airplanes worth 10, 11, 12 ipc to help defend and possibly strafe good targets from Russia.

@weddingsinger:

IF your UK opponent does Taranto raid, there should be few fighters left on London to scramble, which means you can either sink it in sz109 or it has to limp back to Canada to be repaired and come back no sooner than UK5 to SZ109 or sz91 (Gibraltor)

Short of Germany capturing London on turn 1, why isn’t the British battleship healed from the naval base in London?  Or are we talking about the battleship in 111?

@Littorio:

I have yet to manage to keep it alive. It really only seems to me that it is an option if the UK scrambles their fighters as you would otherwise be leaving a UK battleship damaged, which in my opinion doesn�t seem like a good trade-off. Am I overlooking something?

Are we talking about turn 1?  Can you explain more fully what is happening on your turn 1?

I move the German battleship, as well as one of the Atlantic subs into 110, and supplement that with 3 fighters and 3 tactical bombers.  I always manage to sink the English ships.  It’s down to luck whether or not I have any surviving German ships, but I’ve always sunk the British fleet.

And by sinking the Royal Navy in sea zones 109, 110, and 111 using your five submarines, battleship, and air force, you’ve forced England into some hard decisions.  The destroyer/transport in Canada might be trying to take out two German submarines.  The Cruiser at Gibraltar has to decide between helping in the Mediterranean, or coming back home to attempt blocking some of Germany’s options with the cruiser & transport from the Baltic (and whatever Germany may have built on turn 1).  German boats sitting in SZ110 (the cruiser, transport from the Baltic and any new boats built) can reach London for a Sealion, Gibraltar/Morocco to really activate Italy, or Novgorod from either SZ115 or 127.  That could be a cruiser, fully loaded carrier, and 3 fully loaded transports showing up in either of those 3 theaters on Germany’s second turn.

@Gargantua:

This is one of those few Axis pieces that is of higher value to the Allies than it is to the Axis.

I don’t understand this comment.