Can you use scramble to defend unescorted transports

In the latest printing, that last sentence reads, “Transports may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.”

Yeah, well I meant if you want to be sure you don’t lose a playmate…

I don’t have setup charts in front of me for Global 40. In my games we have British Commandos, Marines, Germany Air borne and others. You could have it were you buy paratrooper troop just for air transport like you suggested. Give it a few. Other guys will be posting too with there ideas.

Captain walker, I’m not trashing this strategy, but wouldn’t an extra carrier for each power be more helpful, and give you more mobility for roughly the same cost?  Although an English AB on Gib, and an American AB on Morocco sounds intriguing giving you a really good air def for your transport navies(s) it sounds very costly. I’m not sure how that helps you when you move to Norway or deeper into the Med though because you would be leaving the cover of those bases, and the Luftwaffe could hit you then.

I could see it helping though if you build your fleet(s) then next turn move to Gib and drop AB(s) on the same turn so you could get immediate air cover. You wouldn’t have to wait for a carrier built that turn to catch up, but you would still need to bulk-up the navy before you move towards your objectives so I’m not seeing a major benefit for spending 30 IPCs on AB(s). Sounds like you may be going light on your navy builds for protection of your transports, and are compensating with the AB’s but the cost of the ABs is what is causing the weaker navy builds to start with.

I guess it would help to shuck-shuck through Gib though needing fewer naval units to protect your ships off Gib. I can see this would hold off the Luftwaffe for some time as well so there are some pro"s and con’s to say the least.

That is as valid an opinion as mine.  :evil:

That’s okay, I would also increase the number of German submarines on the board and put some convoy zones out in the mid North Atlantic that hurt US Economy (and UK Economy)

But then, if we implemented my changes, the Germans would need a significant bid again probably.  So yea, in the case of game balance, realism does need to take a back seat (that is not to say forget it completely!)

A naval base isn’t needed to load transports. A transport can take 2 units from 2 different territories as long as the territory is adjacent to the transport’s sea zone. It can also take 1 unit, move into another sea zone, and load another unit from an adjacent territory.

And yes, you can use Eastern USA’s Naval base to move the transports to offload in Morocco. Naval Bases serve all friendly ships in sea zones adjacent to the territory that the Naval base is on.

One reason to use them on land would be to take FRA, WFR, and SFR all at once … but it probably doesn’t outweigh the strategic advantage of sinking an extra SZ of Allied ships.

Though you have me thinking now about how many land units you can safely free up (i.e. start moving toward Russia early) by using significant air over Paris and how much difference that would make against the USSR.  This would only make sense if you only do Sea Lion opportunistically and you plan an early Barbarossa.

@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.