Can a transport unload to 2 territories?

Thanks that’s sorta what I thought

Also, assuming the cruiser initiates combat and the defending subs remain, don’t forget that the defending subs get to shoot first even though they are defending. That means the cruiser might not even get to shoot at all…

Marsh

@Boldfresh:

honestly, i think this game is awesome with it’s CURRENT setup.  i feel like the allies need nothing.

I don’t see how the axis can lose in this setup if the allies receive nothing.

USA only makes 17 on the pacific map alone.

I think Japan can take it.

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

That’s my understanding as well.

IMO, if transports or any other ship enters SZ with enemy sub, sub should always have the opyion of suprize attack shot. Thats the way i play it.

@anderb:

attackung true neutrals is plain stupid. best way to lose a game.

:-D

mine was only a question of “if I were to attack as I do …” neutral attack is inconvenient for both sides, especially because the axis has no men to cover additional fronts … this is clear.

USSR/France/UK.
US/ANZAC/China