Bonus clarification

Yea my bad, makes sense that the attacking sub would have the choice to submerge in the sz that the battle took place (no enemy dd present), or retreat 1 adjacent sz from where it came.

Thank you. I was tracking the TPT and sub rules in regards to Kamikaze.

First let me say sorry, Its Japanese
You are correct ItIsILeClerc, I miss read Krieg"s answer to my Kamikazi Question.
You’ll see my post in the one “heres a question”
Thanks again
S.A.
p.s. Just dont forget to use them

Its a pretty straight forward setup:

Attacker declares ALL combat moves and then you request defender to decide on Scrambles/Intercepts.  This indicates you have concluded all your combat moves for the turn.

At this point, the Attacker has passed the point of no return and is stuck with all the decisions just made.

You’ll get a lot of mileage out of requiring the attacker to request scramble decisions with the understanding it indicates they have concluded all their combat moves.

In the case where there are no scrambles, just require the attacker to announce something along the lines of, “That ends my combat move phase.”

Generally it is VERY important when playing in person to make sure you announce the transition of the phases and don’t muddle up combat and non-combat moves.  Not saying people all cheat, but it sucks when you lose track of unit movement and end up double moving something that impacts the game dramatically (like moving a bomber to Hawaii in your combat move phase and then non-combat moving it in the same round to one of the smaller islands and now being in striking distance of unprotected Japanese TT which should have been safe but now are not).

Yup, rifles are DEFINITELY better AA than flak.

@Cmdr:

knp,

I dont believe America would have to TAKE Korea, in your scenario.  You are free to NCM warships into hostile zones without risk of Kamikazee attacks so long as there are no enemy warships present.

So if Japan had no units in SZ 6, but had 6 Kamikazees left, America could waltz in with 3 battleships during NCM and nothing could be done about it.

Yeah, you are right.  USA could lose the land battle for Korea and still move in the warships to SZ6 in the NCM with no kamikaze attacks.  I worded that a bit wrong, but the point I was making was that as long as there are no Japanese naval units in SZ6, then the USA could move warships into SZ6 in the NCM and Japan could not use it’s kamikaze.  The battle for Korea has no influence one way or the other in this example.

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I want to clarify.
The rules say that an “allied” destroyer in the same sea zone that you attack will not cancel the abilities of enemy subs since any force attacks alone, Allied forces can only defend together.  I assume this applies to scrambling as well.  Here’s my situation:
The US has a large fleet occupying SZ 6.  Japan has fighters on it’s airbase.  ANZAC wants to amphibiously assault Korea.  If the Japanese fighters scramble, will they only be fighting the ANZAC ships?
Even though the US and ANZAC are Allies, since ANZAC is on the attack, the US ships are basically idle during this action, is that correct?

I have seen the axis hit turkey to open up that water strait.  Sometimes the axis feels that it needs to do it. Now that said I have never seen an allied player hit one.