Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.

@Krieghund said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:

BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.

Krieghund’s reply:

A scramble forces a sea battle, while a kamikaze strike does not. A kamikaze strike is a single attack against a single unit, not a full-blown battle.

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Sub plus kamikaze is still powerful though…

@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)

not a silly question then! Hahaha

@Krieghund Assuming that I have a friendly sea zone,can I offload from my ally’s transport on my combat move and then, during my non-combat move, load more units onto the same transport?

@ampdrive No. Using your ally’s transport doesn’t exempt it from the rule that a transport may not load in the same turn after offloading.

@Krieghund Thank you for the timely reply.I thought,just maybe,this was a way to more efficiently utilise US transports with UK land units in sz 110.

Man, I don’t remember ever coming across this.

I scoured the rulebooks but couldn’t find, also the FAQs

You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.

It appears to me that you don’t have to say whether you’re actually attacking the sub(s) until you decide to roll that battle, that sea zone. (So you never need to declare ahead of time, just decide when you get to that sea zone)

Is this correct? Surely I missed something somewhere.

Triple A (which we never trust, like P@nther has in his signature) makes you say whether you are attacking transports/subs before any dice are rolled.

I realize you can’t move units in the combat movement phase that are not going to conduct combat.

However, in this situation a destroyer was escorting a transport over subs, so the destroyer must be moved in combat movement. Then does that destroyer have the option of attacking the subs, and does the player get to wait until getting to that battle in the conduct combat phase to actually decide to attack or not?

I know you can ignore subs in the combat movement phase, but do you have to declare that you’re not going to attack them? I can’t find that you have to declare in advance.

Can’t wait to hear this answer.

@gamerman01

Is not it still like you wrote: “You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.” So during combat MOVEMENT you decide to ignore or not?

That’s the whole point of my question.
I can’t see in the rulebook that you declare anything about attacking subs in combat movement.

@gamerman01 You must decide during combat movement whether or not you are ignoring enemy subs/transports.

And so you have to tell your opponent.

Curious where it says this in rulebook?

@gamerman01 It doesn’t say it explicitly, but the intent of combat movement is to either initiate or avoid combat, so it follows that the intent must be stated when the movement is made.

Nice!! That’s what I wanted, and as always you are so fast

Thanks Krieghund, have a nice day

Just for fun:
Kamikazes were involved in my situation also 😎
So it can be a big deal that you have to declare before kamikaze attacks rather than after.

But it didn’t matter because I had 2 mighty subs that @oysteilo didn’t dare attack with a single destroyer in an amphibious assault attempt. He wanted Korea, and he got it. I never saw it coming.

Ok. Here’s a related amphib assault question – no kamikazi though.
US assaults FIC with 1 Sub + transports
Japan has 3 subs

As the US attacker, I can ignore the subs and launch an amphib assault, if the transport is escorted by a “warship” because of the following in the rules

“A transport that is part of an amphibious assault must end its movement in a friendly sea zone (or one that could become friendly as result of sea combat) from which it can conduct the assault. However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”

Subs do not make a SZ friendly or hostile. So what effect does the escorting sub do?
One interpretation is that a sub is a “warship” and suppresses the other subs. But I see it equally possible that “warship” = surface vessel, and thus the escort cannot suppress the subs. Combat will occur if the defender wishes to fight–he has the option to submerge.

Subs are warships - just not surface warships (see the heading under Sea Units on p. 31 of the Europe rulebook).

@matttodd1 ok. Thanks for that clarification