Timing of moves during combat move…

There are tons of people for the J1 attack.  However we have played our last 6 games with Japan attacking on the 4th round.  Even though the UK gets extra money from the islands it doesn’t compare to the USA’s bonus money.  last 6 games Japan has taken India in round 5 every time.
  Now we have played multiple games with the J1 attack and are about 50/50 on who wins.

This was very enjoyable to read.

@Krieghund:

Thanks for your feedback, guys.  This is what we’re currently considering:
Q.  Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”.  Under exactly what conditions may subs attack moving transports?
A.  If at any time during a transport’s movement it finds itself in a sea zone with a submarine belonging to a power with which it is at war and there is no friendly surface warship in the sea zone belonging to a power that is at war with the enemy power, it may be fired upon.

Portions of this were copied from the FAQ response to escorted transports, but I haven’t seen a ruling on it.
Perhaps I’m not clear on movement phases for different units.  Prior to the escort rules for transports nothing actually affected gameplay in the middle of a move.  You could move some, move others, still move more, and it didn’t matter how or in what order as long as it was legal at the end of the move and start of the next phase.  However, with the new rules for unescorted transports, the timing of movement is a rather big deal and can dilute the strategic value of the subs (and the escort rule).  Basically, there are three scenarios that I see:

A)  Units always begin moving at the same time whether moving one space, two, four, etc.  So nothing can “wait” for another unit to catch up and every piece moves individually, even if it’s only moving one space and something else is moving two spaces to arrive at the same territory/seazone.  If this is the case, transports 1 or 2 spaces ahead of warships moving to a enemy subs’ seazone will be fired on if they move into that seazone as the warships haven’t arrived yet.  This seems to me to be the strictest interpretation of simultaneous movement.  It also means you can’t leapfrog a transport through an enemy sub seazone, by which I mean moving a warship its two spaces into a seazone that has an enemy sub, and then moving the transport from a completely different seazone through to the sub/warship seazone and beyond.  Instead, the transport and warship would both move their first space, the sub would take its free shot, the transport (if still alive) would then move and the warship would arrive in the subs seazone.  This follows precedent for the carrier/plane movement, but gives the sub the most opportunities for a hit.

B)  “Faster” units and those moving a greater distance move first.  For example, a fighter, a destroyer and a transport are all moving to this seazone.  The fighter is moving 3 spaces, the destroyer 2 spaces, and the transport 1 space.  The fighter make its first move, the detroyer and fighter then move together, arriving at the transport’s seazone where all three move together to the final seazone, where the lurking sub is.  In this manner you CAN wait, providing you’re moving a shorter distance.  It still complies with everything moving at the same time and you still can’t leapfrog a transport.  It also complies with carrier/plane movement, and gives the sub an advantage only against leapfrogging as ships within a space of the subs seazone, but not in the transports seazone can provide the escort (according to the new errata) with their first move, meeting the transport.

C)  There is no Spoon:  Movement isn’t actually instantaneous and you can all speedy-like move a warship in to cover the transport that will pass through.  In this case, you can choose to leapfrog units and in which order you move your units, moving a warship its two spaces into a seazone that has an enemy sub, and then moving the transport safely through.  This currently complies with how the errata is worded on escorts because I don’t recall any rules as movement as occurring on a space by space basis.  Previous rules specifically address movement as occurring at the same time only in the sense that it’s in the same phase (you can’t move, conduct combat, move with the same unit other than planes) but the escort rule actually comes into effect in the middle of the move, in the cases where you pass through the subs seazone.  This style of movement is the least in keeping with the already established carrier rules, however, as planes are supposed to move individually and at the same time as the carriers.  Maybe this is a simpler rule, but more of an exploit of the phase and I’d rather the sub be able to strategically threaten routes rather than seeing combat moves within combat move.

So which is it?  For what it’s worth (not much) I prefer B with the new errata ruling, although I still think the previous rule of a warship needing to shadow the entire movement, or already being on station in the subs seazone and not moving out of it was equally in keeping with the idea of a escort convoy.  Seazones are big, the warship should really be with it the whole time.

It might help to clear up some of the confusion by stepping though an example.

Assume Japan meets the requirements on a previous turn to allow Kamikaze attacks.

Assume sz17 has 1destroyer and Iwo Jima has 1inf.

Lets say the US attacks sz17 with 1CRZ, 2AC (1AC has an ANZAC 1fighter on it as cargo because nations may NOT attack together, only defend together.) and 1trn with units for the Iwo Jima assault.

Lets say the US declares an amphibious assault on Iwo Jima with 1 transport w/2inf, 3ftr which all have 1 movement point left to move in noncombat and land on 2AC in sz17 during Mobilize New Units Phase.

In phase 2 (Combat Movement) of the US turn, the US moves his units and declares his amphibious assault.

When phase 2 is done, and before phase 3 starts, Japan announces 2 Kamikaze attacks on 1Ac, 2 Kamikaze attacks on the other 1Ac with ANZAC 1ftr as cargo on it.

Phase 2 for the US is done, over with; the US player may NOT change their moves.

Japan must declare how many Kamikaze attacks they will roll for. They can’t roll, then check for hits, and roll some more.

Fighters are already flying at the start of Combat Movement, they do not move with the AC, they move separately, and land on the AC at the end of noncombat.

Before phase3 for the US starts, the 4 Kamikaze attacks are rolled.

Let’s say Japan gets 1 hit on each AC. (if there were 2 hits on 1 AC, then the AC would be removed at this time.)

Now start phase 3…Conduct Combat!

US attacker rolls for 1CRZ @3,2 damaged AC @0, 1 loaded trn @0
US gets 1 hit.

Japan chooses 1DD as a casualty, and rolls @2 for a miss.

With the sz17 now clear, it is now amphibious assault time and the US wins that battle and takes control of Iwo Jima.

Phase 4 Noncombat.

Oh no! The US has nowhere to land 3ftrs, the 2AC are damaged, and the fighters are lost to the sea and removed from play.

On the ANZAC turn, his 1ftr may not leave the damaged AC.

On Japan’s turn, aircraft are sent to easily destroy the stuff in sz17 (1Crz@3, 2damagedAC with a fighter that is stuck below deck @2, 1trn @0), the 3ftrs from before are no longer there and 1 is stuck below deck.

Conclusion, the only planes involved with Kamikaze attacks are planes from other Allies below deck as cargo. The rest of the planes have to deal with whatever happened.

Japan would have loved to Kamikaze attack the transport, but the rules do not allow that.

Japan could have Kamikaze attacked the 1CRZ and, if successful, prevented the amphibious assault because there would be no way to clear the seazone (AC attack @0, transports attack @0).

Why did the US bring in the 2AC, when it could have moved them there during noncombat? I don’t know.  Rules do not prevent bad play. This was an example of what happens, not how one should play.

kcdzim is correct.  Making a combat move against a power immediately makes all sea zones containing its surface warships hostile.