Question for Krieghund [or anyone else that knows for sure]

@nolimit said in defending Sub question:

@commander-jeff 2, they retreat to One sz Area wherever any of the Transports came from- also the Units stay on the Transports!

To elaborate on this, the transports may retreat to a sea zone from which any of the original attacking sea units entered, so if the destroyer and/or sub actually entered from a different direction than the transports, that sea zone would also be valid for the retreat.

Also, if none of the sea zones from which any of the attacking units entered were friendly (they all started in enemy-occupied zones) or all of the attacking units were already in the contested sea zone to start with, no retreat would be possible and the transports would be automatically destroyed. Of course, in the latter case the attacking units could combat move out of the sea zone and then back in in order to establish a retreat route, assuming there were an adjacent friendly sea zone.

Ok miss read Krieg’s clarification on my highlighted section

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23640.0
And some other one somewhere

another example of this in action is attacking an enemy sub.  He might (and probably will) submerge, but its up to the defender so the attacker needs to send enough hardware to the sz to win if the enemy defends.

@Razor:

It sure dont work that way in the Pacific, if Japan attack neutral DEI, then Japan is suddenly at war with everybody, even neutral USA.

Not immediately.  Japan is only at war with UK/ANZAC.  The US is allowed to declare war on Japan on its next turn.  The same thing applies here.  If Italy declares war on the USSR, the USSR is allowed to declare war on Germany on its next turn, but it is not immediately at war with Germany.

@Razor:

And if it was the other way around, that Russia attacked Italy, then I am pretty sure that Russia would automatically be at war with Germany also.

No, but Germany could declare war on the USSR on its next turn.

@Razor:

If Italy attack USA, is only Italy at war with USA then ? Germany is not ?

Correct.  However, either Germany or USA may declare war on the other on their next turn.

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.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@miamibeach:

Uk Europe is more like 26.  Italy will be about 22 at most.  Japan at 32.  Uk Pacific 24.

UK Europe is 26? They have 34 with NO so there are 4 subs doing convoy raids?

It depends on how many SUBs remain.  When I was Germany I only had 1 SUB left, SgtBlitz had 3 SUBs left.  Including the NO The range should be from 34 at most, to 28 at least depending on German strategy.