Can you use scramble to defend unescorted transports

I think the rule changed to give more power to destroyers as sub hunters.

@weddingsinger All I was trying to say is that parking your US fleet in SZ 6 is a recipe for disaster, when it can be in every space around SZ 6 and be much safer. You can however, park as many subs there as you want because 1) once you control that area, you can screen out destroyers who could come 2) he cant build ships in SZ 6 unless you threaten that build, so any destroyers that are built can be blown up before Japan’s next turn 3) the subs can’t be hit by either kamis or planes, whereas your surface fleet can usually be mopped up by Japan’s abundant air force returning home plus some kamis on the carriers to defeat the air support

I have to think that much focus on Russia would leave Japan too exposed in the water and on the coast.

Russia gets +3 ipcs for each German, Italian or Pro Axis territory….ie Finland, Bulgaria,Iraq are pro Axis

Thank You, Basically airpower or/both sea power can protect transports from scramblers. But one must commit before they know if there will be a battle. I get it an like it.

No.  Transports may not be loaded (or unloaded) in a hostile sea zone.

@lnmajor:

But then you would never send unescorted transports to amphibous assault a TT containing a airbase with fighters present. Is that correct?

yup, gotta protect those transports.

As exciting as this seems.

I am putting this in the “Bad Ideas” category unfortunately.

Now if True Neutrals only were continent specific in regards to how they change over… or Mongolia was Pro Comintern/Allies… I would foam at the mouth.