Sub/Transport Question

@Krieghund Thank you!

good point.  There are reasons why you might want to fight–-say the Germans attack the Russian Cruiser and Sub with 1-2 ships, you might have the sub stay to prolong the battle or have it flee its all situational.  I’ve seen situations where people rush Novogrod Harbor ignoring the sub there and then getting scrambled against so its like 1-3 ships vs 1 sub and 2-3 planes…

But once the a sub decides to submerge, they’re out and they can’t come back into the fight that battle, and you can decide for some to flee and some to stay…

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@RedIndian:

Ok here are another 3 :D

USA : (US in first 3 rounds when not at war)

Beside the “No-China-Rule”
Are any ships and airplanes of the US allowed to go through seazones which are adjacent to Japan controlled islands? Yes, aren’t they? Unless they don’t park there/ end the movment adjacent to a Japan controlled island or territory, right?

I found this a bit weird rule as it also bars US from staging ships near singapore which is a major naval base for the UK.
But the rules are the rules :)

It is clear the US cannot attack before turn 4 without being attack is G40’s attempted to get AnA closer to historical actions. US was big about Monroe Doctrine. The bigger question is why USSR cannot attack before Turn 4. I know it’s about the pact between Stalin and Hitler but anyone with a brain knew Stalin was going to attack eventually.

I don’t know why you focus on that now but I will give you an answer.
Stalin’s plan was to wait until all the other powers have weaken each other, so that the USSR is able to conquer the world easily. (he said this on a party meeting of the communism in the 20’s)
Anyone who still says the USSR was nearly or ready to attack the Germans by 1941 is a liar!
The Russians weren’t ready (just had their “great purge”) at all. And as I said, they wanted to wait until there would be a chance later on!
So to me the rule does make sense. It makes it more historical. And if Germany invades & conquers UK, you have the chance to declare war. (this covers Stalin’s plan to wait, although no one know what happened if…)

For the Pacific, the USSR was interested in getting their territories back they had lost years ago against Japan.
But they weren’t strong enough at this time to do this without any help. The navy of the Russians in the Pacific wasn’t strong enough to face the Japanese.

Since 1932 there were several boarder conflicts between USSR and Japan in the north of Mandchuko. Finally in April 1941 both countries signed the  “Soviet�Japanese Neutrality Pact”.
Although many Allied partners of those both countries tried to push them into war with eachother (US the USSR against Japan / Germany Japan against Russia), they never came into war. (Russia needed the troops for Europe, Japan against China, US and all the other pacific campaigns)
Ok at the very last days Russia took some territories but only after all other combats in Europe were done!

So as a German I can give you the advice, be careful what you’re saying. This argument pushed by other nations until 1980s / 1990s justified the attack of the Germans in June, 22 1941. As some of the German Veterans say. Those people were told this, just to make this attack a right and justified one. They (Nazis) even said, this was a defending attack, although it was planned by Hitler for other purposes. Anything else is “Propaganda” or in Trump’s days “fake news”

Historians from different nations proofed this.

So no, Stalin doesn’t want to attack Germany that early! Maybe later, but there are no concrete hints for that in comparison to the Nazis.

Awesome.  Thanks for the quick reply.

Welcome, General A-Ron!

Wheatbeer is correct.  Since Kamikaze strikes occur at the beginning of the Conduct Combat phase, any attacking air units are already in the air.

On the subject of convoy disruption, here’s a quote from the 2nd edition Rulebook:

There are three conditions that must exist for this kind of attack to occur:
1. The sea zone must have a “Convoy” image,
2. The sea zone must be adjacent to one or more of your controlled territories, and
3. At least 1 warship belonging to a power with which you are at war must be in the sea zone. (Any ships in the sea zone that belong to you or a friendly power will have no effect on convoy disruption.)

Convoy attacks on “Convoy” sea zones are conducted in the following manner.

Each enemy warship (except for aircraft carriers) and carrier-based air unit in the sea zone might cause the loss of 1 or more IPCs from your income for the turn. The owners of enemy battleships, cruisers, and/or destroyers rolls one die for each such unit, and the owners of enemy submarines and/or air units roll two dice for each such unit. Any rolls of “4” or higher are ignored. The results of these rolls that are “3” or less are totaled, and the resulting number is the total convoy damage suffered in the disruption. However, this number might be limited. Each disrupted convoy can’t lose more IPCs than the total IPC value of your controlled territories adjacent to the sea zone. Also, no single territory can lose more IPCs than its own IPC value from multiple disrupted adjacent convoys (for example, Japan cannot lose more than 8 IPCs from disrupted convoys in sea zones 6 and 19). After these limits are applied, the final total is subtracted from your income for the turn.

@knp7765:

I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat.  Is this correct?

Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.

That’s my understanding as well.

Zallomallo is right.  Because the sub submerged, it no longer blocks the amphibious assault and cannot kill the transport.  There was no reason for the sub to submerge, however, as the planes could no longer hit it.  If the sub did not submerge, the transport could retreat, assuming it had somewhere to retreat to (if not, it would be lost).

In AAR and AARe it is perfectly likely that Russia will push into Eastern Europe and the Balkans before Germany falls.  Especially if they go on the offensive very early in the game.

In classic it is also perfectly likely that Russia could take Ukraine and Eastern Europe (or at least trade E. Europe) before Germany falls and Japan gets to Moscow.

In 1940, it is a bit harder, but I have seen some games where  Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia fall, Hungary, W. Poland and S. Germany are traded with Russia.  In this one, I am not sure if this is “normal” or not, because the game is so new.

However, in each game I have played (Classic, Revised, Anniversary, 1940, etc) it seems plausible that Russia could press on Germany before Germany or Moscow fall.  It really depends on the strategy being used (Turtle in Russia to slow the Germans down, killing them by attrition and stretching their lines vs Attack like mad, ignore Japan, and push as hard on Berlin as possible before losing Moscow to Japan) whether or not Russia can, or does, invade and control significan portions of Europe.