Group defense of sea zones using island airbase ?

In addition to this, any of your ships in the sea zone when the combat are presumed to have taken place in combat. The only way to avoid this is to move them during combat movement (even if the move does not result in combat).

Marsh

I’ve seen it happen multiple times in SZ6 around Japan, where a massive US-fleet first sends precisely those units ( sub+air+tt ) in an amphibious assault because they can’t be targetted by kamikaze. After the amphibious assault, the rest of the fleet moves in during noncombat.

The prime response would be a couple of existing US fighters, but since you can’t stage them onto Canada or Iceland or SZ 102 until your 2nd turn, and then only at war (except for SZ 102, so J1) the only way for the UK to receive them would be for them to put a CV in SZ 109, which is dangerous.

The worst thing about a SeaLion threat is that UK needs all its fighters on 1 space, because it cannot defend Scotland and London and a fleet until it has several turns of buys.    This means only 3 scramblers, not the 6 scramblers.    And it means you can’t start an early fleet (say 1 CV and 1 DD in SZ 109) because the fighters will have to jump off once London is threatened, which leaves the fleet bare.

So that’s why CV in 102 is so nice, because its the only direct, safe intervention.  But since you don’t have a CV to start, you’d build US 1, head to SZ 102 US 2, and hope for a J3.  In every other case (J1, J2) you could just land on London as soon as you stage up, but that’d be Iceland US2, London US3.  And if they killed London, your only LZ is back on the carriers…

Thanks for the responses guys. Much appreciated.

…
AAA allows those ships that moved out of sz 6 at the beginning of the combat phase (but not used in the battle) to also move during the non-combat phase, so long as they still have movements left (i.e. they only moved one space during the combat phase to avoid the ensuing battle, and still have one of their two spaces left).

Is this a bug in AAA or is that actually a legal move. I’ve done it before and have seen others do it before, so I assumed it was legal, but maybe it’s not.

Does anyone know for sure?

Yes, it is a bug in TripleA - but it is stated in the game notes included with the map.

When our group gets together, we usually have 6 players:
#1 = Germany
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC
#6 = Italy

5 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC

4 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = Japan
#4 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

3 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

2 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

1 Player:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan/Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

Okay, that last one was just a goof. It’s late and I’m getting silly now. Later all.

The allies can always make sealion next to impossible if they really set their mind to it (UK build infantry, no Taranto, bring ships home, get Canadians, prepare US airstrike).  If they do everything in their power to make it costly and Germany still goes for it, then Germany will be in bad shape after the sealion “victory”.  In that case, losing London is bad but not necessarily a total disaster.  Suppose the opponents don’t really like playing Japan and they’re not very good at it.  As long as USA, USSR and remnant of UK can hold the line against germany, the axis are placed in the crummy position of having to win as Japan.  In that case, it might actually be preferable to intentionally allow a (costly) sealion in order to put the onus on Japan.  If its a team game and the guy playing Germany is more skilled than the guy playing Japan, then coaxing them into a costly sealion might work out OK for the allies.

Yeah, that is correct.