@ulmisiscrazy
Ahhh - Thanks. I had not heard that terminology before and I assumed Afrika Corps meant getting German ground units onto German or Italian transports in the Med and moving them to North Africa.
Kamikaze rule question
-
@wittmann:
There are two occasions when a Kamikaze can be called used. Firstly, if Japanese naval units are attacked in a Kamikaze SZ and secondly, if they try and take an island or territory, in which a Kamikaze symbol exists. In your example, the amphibious assault criterion is negated, as no Surface Warship is accompanying the landing. Transports cannot be targeted.
Is that what you were asking?right I think I get it now! Thanks for the answer!
-
I have a follow up question. What if the empty Philippines is guarded by a single sub, and the Allies send a transport guarded by a destroyer, intending to ignore the submarine to conduct an amphibious assault? I would assume Japan can use its kamikazes because of the amphibious assault, but would the destruction of the destroyer prevent the landing (as lone transports can’t amphibious assault against subs), or would the landing go through since the destroyer already ignored the sub?
-
Morning Colonel Carter.
The Japanese player can use a Kamikaze and if the DD is eliminated by the Kamikaze, the Sub will prevent the landing. -
Sorry, wittmann, but that’s incorrect. Kamikaze strikes, while they do prevent offshore bombardment, do not provoke a sea battle by themselves. As the destroyer was present in the sea zone at the end of combat movement (kamikaze strikes occur in the combat phase), the sub could be ignored, and as there is no sea battle for the sub to be drawn into, it will not prevent the amphibious assault.
-
Ok, thanks Krieg. And thanks Colonel Carter for the question.
-
Has made me rethink though.
This means a Sub off the Philippines, does not prevent the capture of the Islands, as long as the Allied player is happy to lose a DD.
In fact, why throw away a Kamikaze, if the island will fall anyway? -
Thanks Krieg.
-
Need clarification on the word “Ignore”.
So, in essence the DD coming into the same SeaZone with an Enemy Sub , can choose NOT to attack it ( as combat is decided by attacker).
So the Defender cannot choose to “defend” the SeaZone , as the Attacker has chosen not to “attack” it, just “escort” the TR.And since No defense was needed, No Kamikaze involved.
Is this a correct analysis of the situation?
Tx
-
That would be correct if there was no amphibious assault involved. However, since the tranny is conducting an amphibious assault, it does allow kamikaze strikes to be used–but they (unlike scrambles) do not force a sea battle, just prevent bombardment, so the sub stays ignored, whether or not the escort ship is destroyed.
-
I am just running into this situation in a game and I was glad to see that the answer is here. As complicated as this scenario is (to me), Krieg’s answer is completely supported by the rulebook. Thanks to all!
Suggested Topics
