Failed amphibious assault, sea battle - retreat question

I would add that you can consider the sub rules as an exploitable loophole, but I would say they refect the very real problems subs caused in naval battles. One unaccounted sub could cause massive disruption to a naval force (hello HMS Ark Royal)

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

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…

Yes, if there is a possible scramble there. Is probably a good idea sometimes.
If you are landing a unit amphibiously, yes it would take the territory unopposed. But you have too clear the Sea Zone first, of course. You fail and the unit stays on board.

1 ipc units are too strong, they would replace infantry.

OK thanks, guess I was wrong but we settled on the right decision!

Is that sarcasm? :P

My armistice rules give the Allies one complete turn after the fall of Paris to move land units into French held tts as per “Pro-Allies” rules to claim them (and defending units) as Free French.  Thereafter all French held tts & units are treated as Vichy until Paris is liberated.