Transport question

You’re right that this rule is ambigious in this rule book. But to me the intention of the game makers is very clear. That shows not from this rule book, but from all rule books after this version. For example in the rule book from 1943 2nd, They state specifically that all strategic bombing raids take place first. This resolves any argument about who pays the IPC’s to the bank, the attacker or the defender! Since they solved this in the next rule book, i think it is quite obvious what they intended and tried to correct.

@P@nther:

@steve400:

So in my scenario the defending sub can submerge and avoid taking the hit ???

No. The decision to submerge is made in the “Press Attack or Retreat Step”.
This is before rolling the dice again.

Ah! Enlightenment. Many thanks  :-)

Yes.  Air attacks (other than SBRs) work in the same way as any other attack.  The attack continues until one side or the other (or both) is destroyed, or the attacker retreats (or the defender submerges if it’s a sub).

Short Version:

If all 4 units to be moved are still in EUS at the start of the US move, then the Algeria amphib can be done using only 1 TRN and the 2 units it can carry, the other INF and the AA would have to be moved in NCM (assuming the US won the amphib)

@dezrtfish:

…this isn’t near as funny now.

I don’t know about that.  :-D

But it IS a simplification in terms of game mechanics.  And I recently LOST an argument where “game mechanics” won out over logic (see the topic Multinational Units on Attack).

Movement of each type occurs all at one time;  all combat movement occurs at once, all non-combat movement occurs after that, THEN the place units phase, then collecct income.  There is no non-combat movement of FIGs after unit placement, which the old rule REQUIRES.  That is the “simplification.”

Before, transporting a tank was a joke, something you didn’t do unless you had extra transports.  It was a 3-2 unit, so a 2-2, 2-2 artillery infantry combination was better.  Now, tanks are on par; amphibious invasions are much more like land attacks.  So the end result of the increased defense and transport ease is that the artillery is what it should be: a supplement unit both amphibiously and not.  I applaud avalon hill’s new rules on land units because it is both realistic and feasible.  I don’t really see that one of the poll options adaquately shows my view.  I would say “it’s all about the money”, but when in this game is it not always about the money?

My fault for being lazy. Yes there were more Italian “conquests” during the war. But I thought it funny that the Italians took etheopia. And to give credit where credit is due. Some Italian units fought bravely in Africa. Not through (or for) thier own government, but by the example of Rommel. The man was an inspiration to them as well as the Germans who fought.

I used to play a comp game that illustrated the Italian military very correctly. I got the hugest kick out of building up thier tech and having them march into moscow. The friend I played was not as good as I was. The only thing better than beating him… was to have him be defeated by the Italians lol.