Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
That is the power of kamikaze!!! :fearful:
-
eh - kamikazes plus submarine, that is. The kamikazes alone can’t stop the landing since they can’t hurt transports, of course
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
That is the power of kamikaze!!! :fearful:
I did right then!
-
G gamerman01 referenced this topic on
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
The sub prevention is for combat move only.
You are in the combat phase. Both destroyers are gone, so you have loaded transport vs. sub. Sub gets a shot, and if it misses, the transport retreats because the attacker has no chance against that sub now
I was also wondering about this scenario.
My interpretation would be that the US player can chose to ignore the sub in the CM. This is possible due to surface warships present. US DD are then sunk in the Combat phase.
I would assume the sub is still ignored. Is this incorrect? @gamerman01 ?
-
I think that combat is created by kamikaze rather than the attacker.
-
No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle. -
@Krieghund said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:
@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:
BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.Krieghund’s reply:
A scramble forces a sea battle, while a kamikaze strike does not. A kamikaze strike is a single attack against a single unit, not a full-blown battle.
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Sub plus kamikaze is still powerful though…
-
@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]
Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ) -
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]
Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)not a silly question then! Hahaha
-
@Krieghund Assuming that I have a friendly sea zone,can I offload from my ally’s transport on my combat move and then, during my non-combat move, load more units onto the same transport?
-
@ampdrive No. Using your ally’s transport doesn’t exempt it from the rule that a transport may not load in the same turn after offloading.
-
@Krieghund Thank you for the timely reply.I thought,just maybe,this was a way to more efficiently utilise US transports with UK land units in sz 110.
-
Man, I don’t remember ever coming across this.
I scoured the rulebooks but couldn’t find, also the FAQs
You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.
It appears to me that you don’t have to say whether you’re actually attacking the sub(s) until you decide to roll that battle, that sea zone. (So you never need to declare ahead of time, just decide when you get to that sea zone)
Is this correct? Surely I missed something somewhere.
Triple A (which we never trust, like P@nther has in his signature) makes you say whether you are attacking transports/subs before any dice are rolled.
-
I realize you can’t move units in the combat movement phase that are not going to conduct combat.
However, in this situation a destroyer was escorting a transport over subs, so the destroyer must be moved in combat movement. Then does that destroyer have the option of attacking the subs, and does the player get to wait until getting to that battle in the conduct combat phase to actually decide to attack or not?
I know you can ignore subs in the combat movement phase, but do you have to declare that you’re not going to attack them? I can’t find that you have to declare in advance.
Can’t wait to hear this answer.
-
Is not it still like you wrote: “You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.” So during combat MOVEMENT you decide to ignore or not?
-
That’s the whole point of my question.
I can’t see in the rulebook that you declare anything about attacking subs in combat movement. -
@gamerman01 You must decide during combat movement whether or not you are ignoring enemy subs/transports.
-
And so you have to tell your opponent.
Curious where it says this in rulebook?
-
@gamerman01 It doesn’t say it explicitly, but the intent of combat movement is to either initiate or avoid combat, so it follows that the intent must be stated when the movement is made.
Suggested Topics
