Mongolia and Neutrals - rules summarized here

@Gen-Nehring-0 said in Rules Verification:

The rules seem clear to me that you have only 2 options, 1. Stay and battle the Jap destroyer or 2. Leave the hostile sea zone and cannot move into another hostile sea zone. Right? The other 2 rules in the rulebook are for troop transports correct?

As @Wittmann said. There are no “Transport-only” rules included in the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Se Zones”-rules. Of course the transport is the only unit allowed to load, but the movement itself is allowed to every sea unit. In general it is the nature of a Combat Move to end in a hostile seazone to conduct combat there. The “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”-rules is a specification and somehow extension.

@simon33

They can also take the Denmark, Finland, Holland et al money with this proposal. Also for example, SZ 112 and 126? would be connected to Norway $, making the placement of convoying units more flexible. Youre right that mostly the money will be taken by the proper force, not convoyed, but this proposal increases the value of subs and puts a lot more money on the line. I agree in principle that the convoy zones chosen by the creator are themey and appropriate but its easy to go further and put alot more $$ at risk on the board sea/land.

I put a russian sub down in Game 191 just for fun (it cost me later) and I did successfully blow up both and all possible Normandy/norway money for one turn. What if the baltic was like that? This also goes back to Dave’s idea of splitting the adriatic (so to nerf taranto and divide Italy $$ into two convoy zones)

@ShadowHAwk:

@wittmann:

1. Yes.
2. Yes. Each scrambling Fighter would get one roll of 4 to hit and sink one TT, with its cargo onboard. On the next turn the attacker could retreat any surviving Transports. (Or stay and try an be sunk again, naturally,)
3. A Sub is ignored, unless a Scramble happens, then it is in the fight.
You did realise, however, that a Sub forbids an amphibious assault, if the Transport(s) is not escorted?

Where is that rule in the book? I heared from it but in my game this weekend i could not find it.

Thought that transports can only ignore subs if they got a warship sailing with them.

See the rulebook:
@rulebook:

Transports
….
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.

So the requirement of an escorting warship applies to the ability to unload troops (not to ignore a submarine).

HTH :-)

@General:

If you do it early enough you can take Gibraltar without the need for a navy. It does open up more landing spots for the Allies but taking the base from them is a hindrance to the American player. And if you maintain parity with the Soviets above the Black Sea you can then undercut them through the Caucasus.

Unlikely to be worth it though. Opening up the weak points in both Spain and Gibraltar doesn’t help the Axis. And those 8 inf in Turkey are a real pain to take out.

I don’t see a flight path on the map that would be shortened by being able to fly over the Pripet Marshes, so I suppose that it’s not particularly relevant from an A&A perspective whether or not planes can fly over them.

The original strategy was no secret what Japan was doing.  It was hauling units back and dropping serious money on transports.  The idea was to get them next to W. USA/Panama or one space away so you could close the Canal and take W. USA before America could build enough to stop you.  Meanwhile, the Germans had to be in SZ 91 with some transports of its own, it was like 10 transports and units in Gibraltar./SZ 91 so they could attack E. USA or E. Canada.  That made it so America lost Panama and W. USA but could build enough to stop an E. USA attack but not enough toliberate W. USA and E. Canada.

It was almost unstoppable.  Or rather, I have never seen anyone stop it.  (Putting that disclaimer on so that Jimmy/Jim dont start threads about how to stop Operation American Eagle, etc.)

@lnmajor:

But then you would never send unescorted transports to amphibous assault a TT containing a airbase with fighters present. Is that correct?

yup, gotta protect those transports.

@Pelanderfunk:

The Soviets get a 5 IPC bonus for being at war. In all of the global games I’ve played so far, the Soviet player has simply “declared war” on Japan on R1, regardless of whether or not they had plans to attack.

Is there any reason that the Soviets wouldn’t declare war on Japan as soon as they can? Is there any reason that being “at war” is a requirement of this NO if the Soviets can always be at war?

This has been addressed in the FAQ thread.  The Soviets have to be at war with either Germany or Italy in order to receive the 5 IPC bonus.  Of course, it would have been nice for the rulebook to say this directly.