Alpha +2

@Travelman:

… or is there surprise attack capability lost since they are not accompanied by destroyers?

Actually it is the attacker’s destroyer that cancels the defending sub’s surprise strike ability.
A defending destroyer would cancel the attacking sub’s surprise strike ability.

Yes, the transports could have retreated one sea zone space and go back to SZ 112. Units remain loaded in the sea. At this point, you’d have to hope that you built more ships and or 3 fighters and or tac. bombers would be on the airbase at w. Germany and enough to save your troops.

Note, if during the sea battle, your ships could soak up 3 hits (2 for battleships + 1 for cruiser), and the defender rolled 5 hits. Then 2 hits would have had to apply to transports which would bring their cargo to the bottom of the channel. The rest of the transports could then retreat.

Nice detail Jerc, I will need some time to read it, but I will get back to you with my 2 cents.

PM me,. then.

The few games I campaigned through China I used the jap aa gun to try and kill that ftr.  I remember it worked at least once.  a small stack against a chinese attack that is light on arty means China will have to bring the ftr to have the punch to clear the zone.  This can work great if you are cutting the Burma road every round.

I also did air raid it the first game I played Japan too.  I just don’t think that ftr is really worth gunning for.  Now if it could leave China or attack the sz’s on the coast it would be dead meat.

I’d rather kill that ftr when its attacking than having to go in and dig it out when its rolling 4’s.

@Alsch91:

The interception/escorting dogfight stages occur before the bombers “split up” to strike their assigned targets.  Therefore those Tacs being used are actually able to take interceptor hits for Strategic bombers, even though they have different targets.

Huh, ya know, alright, you got me.  I personally haven’t ever done a split like that so I’d never thought about that/  Yea, ok, I’ll concede that point.  well played sir.  well played indeed.  I take it all back.  mea culpa, mea culpa.

I’ve deleted my flagrantly ill conceived rule interpretations, and will remember this the next time I consider SBRs…  boy, is my face red.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

Yes, of course. Feel free to load them up FieldMarshal and if there are any improvements or corrections, let me know and I’ll fix em up quick. Glad you guys like em.  :-D