2015 League General Discussion Thread

@Adam514:

1. Can unprotected transports stay in a sea zone with an enemy sub during the combat phase of the nation that owns the transports?

Yes, the subs can be ignored.  Enemy subs can only stop an unescorted transport attempting an amphibious assault from the zone the sub(s) is in (no dice rolled - unescorted transport is simply unable to make the amphibious assault)

2. Would the presence of ships in the sea zone with the enemy sub allied to the transports change the answer to question 1?

No, it doesn’t change the answer, because the answer to question 1 is already yes, the unprotected transports can stay in the zone without escort

So dominion is telling you the same thing - I just did it without citing rulebook pages.

on pg. 13 of rulebook explicitly states that the transport not able to do an amphib without warship escort is an exception:

Enemy submarines and/or transports do not block any
of your units’ movement, nor do they prevent loading
or offloading in that sea zone (with one exception; see “Special Combat Movement: Transports,” page 16).

Thanks axis-dominion and Gamerman, I must say I’m surprised about it. Also, I’m surprised Triple A provides a warning about a false rule (warns that the transports that stay in the sea zone with the sub will be destroyed).

Triple A has a lot of differences with the rule book, as you will see if you look in Help -> Game Notes

Hi, are facilities (industrial complexes and bases) considered as units for purposes of default bidding rules? So could for example US bid for units on Midway? Or could UK bid a minor factory to Egypt or Gibraltar?

Funny that hasn’t come up yet Nerquen, as the IC in egy might be worth a try.  I dunno if there’s any precedent.  I guess we’ll have to decide.  I’m fine with it.

I’ve seen bids of ICs in Egypt, but those may have been agreed to beforehand.

Also, I would say an IC in Gibraltar is not allowed because it’s not worth 2 IPCs.

Right, the bid rules just say “units” and do not prohibit facilities.

Note that this year’s rules do specify that there is already a unit there.  There is an airbase on Midway and a naval base on Gibraltar, so another unit may be added to them.  Note that the default league bidding rules are for a limit of 1 unit added per territory/sea zone.  Again, a reminder that these are default league rules and may be altered by agreement of both players.  The purpose of the league bid rules is to give a starting, default point, and should be used if one player does not agree to a change proposed by his opponent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g

@Gamerman01:

There is an airbase on Midway and a naval base on Gibraltar, so another unit may be added to them.

There is also a fighter on Gib IIRC.  Nothing special about a base being there - my point is that a base is a unit so a base being on Midway or Wake, for example, qualify them for a bid unit according to default league rules.

@Gamerman01:

@Gamerman01:

There is an airbase on Midway and a naval base on Gibraltar, so another unit may be added to them.

There is also a fighter on Gib IIRC.  Nothing special about a base being there - my point is that a base is a unit so a base being on Midway or Wake, for example, qualify them for a bid unit according to default league rules.

Ok, thanks Gamrman01. What about the restrictions for IC’s? Can one place a bid IC on an island or a territory with PU value less than 2?

No, it’s against the rulebook to put an IC on an island or a territory that isn’t worth 2 or more

Rules question for Gamer or whoever else wants to handle it.  Situation is this: Japan and US both have huge fleets separated by a blocking space around Australia.  Japan has some mechanized ground units in Australia that can attack NSW by moving 2 spaces, the planes from the Japanese fleet can only attack NSW if they land in the sz protected by the US (no other possible landing space is available).  With the fleet blocked the Japanese have no chance of clearing that sz.  Is Japan allowed to send its planes against NSW while sending a single plane against the US fleet to technically give battle a create a claim of somehow being able to clear the zone for the Japan CVs to catch the planes in noncom (assume they clear the blocking space as well)?

@rgp44:

Rules question for Gamer or whoever else wants to handle it.  Situation is this: Japan and US both have huge fleets separated by a blocking space around Australia.  Japan has some mechanized ground units in Australia that can attack NSW by moving 2 spaces, the planes from the Japanese fleet can only attack NSW if they land in the sz protected by the US (no other possible landing space is available).  With the fleet blocked the Japanese have no chance of clearing that sz.  Is Japan allowed to send its planes against NSW while sending a single plane against the US fleet to technically give battle a create a claim of somehow being able to clear the zone for the Japan CVs to catch the planes in noncom (assume they clear the blocking space as well)?

Yup Japan would be allowed to send a sub or a plane to the sea zone to create a potential landing spot. If you weren’t allowed, then blockers would sometimes also prevent air from reaching a target.

From the notes: “* (PE) All air moved must have a way of potentially being picked up or landing, and all air that survives combat MUST be picked up if possible.”

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

@rgp44:

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

Well it’s easier to say possible than establishing a limit to what is possible or impossible/highly unlikely. There is a chance that the lone plane can single-handedly clear the sea zone of hostile ships, and so that sea zone is a potential landing zone if carriers could reach it on the NC phase. Think of it this way: assuming all the attacks go perfectly, would the carriers be able to reach the sea zone? If the answer is yes, then that sea zone is a potential landing zone and combat moves can be made accordingly.

I understand what your saying and the game I’m playing is a friendly league game and we are asking because the issue came up and it was interesting.  Wanted to know the official league rule for reference in the future.  In our game Axis dominion and I have agreed on an “above 0%” rule, meaning the odds of winning the combat must be at least 1% or you can’t make another attack that is dependent on winning that battle otherwise your essentially allowing suicide missions.

@Adam514:

@rgp44:

yeah the problem is how you define possible, if you attack with one plane against 13 loaded carriers I don’t consider that possible

Well it’s easier to say possible than establishing a limit to what is possible or impossible/highly unlikely. There is a chance that the lone plane can single-handedly clear the sea zone of hostile ships, and so that sea zone is a potential landing zone if carriers could reach it on the NC phase. Think of it this way: assuming all the attacks go perfectly, would the carriers be able to reach the sea zone? If the answer is yes, then that sea zone is a potential landing zone and combat moves can be made accordingly.

That rule is hilarious. Yes a massive fleet is blocking me, but I can send planes anyways, because I send a lone submarine to try and kill the fleet. And the transports are gone…