Does a carrier autokill a transport?

which brings up the fun option of sending in fighters to attack with an unlikely landing spot. For example, lets say Japan has 8 transports in the Sea of Japan, but a massive fleet stationed a zone away making it hard for your Allied fleet to create a valid landing spot. You can attack the massive IJN fleet with a single sub which “in theory” could win the battle, and send a fighter to attack the transports with the potential option to land back in the zone that the sub opened up.

The transports are sunk, the allied sub is lost, and sadly there is no valid landing zone so the fighter crashes after the not-completely kamikaze mission. TripleA handles this correctly.

I would have it where each retreating transport would roll 1 d6 each and if a 3 or less is rolled then the transport can retreat 1 sz and off load it’s cargo if possible. At least this is the middle ground on this discussion plus a transport may survive if trannys are split away too.

@genken said in Can Germany have more than 2 aircraft carriers in play:

I have searched for this on the forums and cannot find a reference to it. In the setup for Germany there are 2 pieces for aircraft carriers. I am axis and I started an Africa Korps movement but US entered the war in turn 1. Now I will need 2 carriers to guard the med in SZ 91 but I also want to place a carrier in SZ 113 to counter a possible Russian attack formulated by my cunning opponent. I can use a plastic chip in SZ 91. Is it permissible in the rules for Germany to have 3 carriers in play?

Why do you think that you need CV’s to protect the Med.?
I am curious, wouldn’t Bmbrs doing the same Job and give you more flexibility?
So now you spent 48 ipcs for three CV’s and 32 are lost compared to 48 = 4 Bmbrs plus your Ftr’s and the Allies player would have had to think about it sailing to Gibraltar…just my thoughts…

I agree with Simon about the use of US transports in the Pacific. You wipe out the Japanese navy and take back the islands and the mainland. Shuck your troops to Europe and take out Germany and Italy. Japan will be forced to surrender. You know, just like WW2. Unless the Japanese player has been smoking crack you will spend all day assaulting Tokyo while Germany makes mincemeat out of Russia and the UK.

The carrier is simply something to help give your fleet a backbone and protects everything in 112 and means you don’t have to land a t bomber in Holland (from Germany).  It protects your transports if you are threatening sea lion and can be used to protect sea units at Gibraltar or 127 (Archangel).  If you can get it to the Mediterranean Sea it can really help Italy too.  The only con is that it does virtually nothing against Russia. 
So basically, do you think being in 112 is useful?  Do you like to threaten (not take) Sea Lion to help Itake?  Do you like hoping Italy in the Med?  Do you like taking Gibraltar? Maybe getting South Africa every ten games?  Do you like feigning Sea Lion then hitting Leningrad? If you answered yes to any of these, a carrier can be useful.

Well some interesting facts.

All agree that in Europe 1940 the axis need a bid.
All agree that japan is hard to stop unless US invest heavy in the pacific.

In global nearly all players give the bid to the allies on the europe board and nobody gives the bid to the pac board.

Has anyone tried the “China first” proposal I made? I used this solution in AA50 as a bid alternative, and I think it works well in G40 too, but haven’t received much feedback from actual games other than my own group.  Maybe its because the HR forums are a wasteland of forgetfulness? haha.  
:-D

The basic idea is pretty simple, everything else stays the same, but China moves first in the turn order!
So in Global that’d be…

China, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac, France (then back to China)

I’m not saying that this change does away with the need for an Allied bid entirely, but it surely makes the bid range a bit narrower, and a lower. I mean if you can bring it down from 15, back into the single digits that’s a definite positive right? And China is a lot more fun to play this way. Its not like you’re getting “11 infantry in Yunnan”, but it does allow China to pull back and consolidate their starting forces, and build 1 round worth of additional units. It gives them their artillery in the first round, and bonus for control of the Burma road. What’s more it gives them a much better chance to secure their National Objective in subsequent rounds. This adjustment in turn order, also affords the Chinese an opening attack option in they want to get balsy!

The reason I really like this approach is because it doesn’t mess with the Europe side of the map (e.g it doesn’t break the med.) Doesn’t change the situation outside of the Chinese theater, since those units are restricted on where they can move. And most importantly, it gives Japan more to worry about. Sure, you’re probably going to kick a lot more ass as Allies if you give UK an extra carrier in the Med, but if that kind of bid strikes you as overly distorting you might try this instead. It’s pretty easy to implement and makes China a lot more effective as a player nation, which eases the pressure on the other Pacific nations. China has an advantage (over India) in that it can’t be strategically bombed or convoy raided into non-existence. Also, you can preserve the illusion that the OOB force distribution of units on the gameboard, actually corresponds to something in reality. As if the units OOB units where chosen for some reason by the designer, to be at least vaguely historical. This change in turn order of just one Nation, allows to avoid bringing too many extra units into the board outside of the normal purchasing/placement mechanisms. Its at least as easy to explain to your opponent as a standard bid, and if you still want to bid anyway, then go for it. But the change is so simple, and it really does give Japan more to chew on, and it seems like the Pacific side of the map is the one that is grabbing all the attention lately in terms of balance.

Also, for the history buffs…I feel like this tweak gives a slight nod to the fact that the War had been going on in China, even before all of Europe and the rest of the world was embroiled in the conflict.

“July 7, 1937 a day that lives in”… I don’t know, the first turn of G40 at least? hehe. There are crazy numbers of potential players in China. The materials are produced there more often than not. Why not roll the dice and see if a China first approach will work? Anathema to all Americans, like me! But in the game’s turn order I think it is kind of cool ;)

@Spendo02:

@Krieghund:

The US cannot win this battle.  The fighters will continue to defend in the air until the battle is over.  The Japanese fighters and US subs can’t hit each other, so the fighters will sink transports until the US retreats.  If the US wishes to conduct this amphibious assault, it must bring units that are capable of hitting the fighters.

This is one of those unique situations where you are required to take Trn as losses before subs because that is all the unit can hit?

Yes.  They just need to be the only legal selection for a loss.  That might mean that planes have no other target (like this example), or that Sub hits have no other ship targets, or that the defenders hit everything else in a round of combat and need to assign some more hits before the defender retreats.  Remember, the defender still has the option to retreat, if they can, and transports are only automatically destroyed when they’re attacked, not when attacking (unless the attacker has no place to retreat).

@MarkVIIIMarc:

To clarify: if i attack a territory and suffer greater losses than i expected i can move additional land units in during my movement phase to help defend it?

Yes that is right. So long as you won the battle you can move in further troops to defend it on your non-combat move. Aircraft, however are excluded as they must land in a territory that has been controlled by you or an ally since the beginning of your turn.

@MarkVIIIMarc:

Also, a transport can not move then pick up a unit, the transport must start off in the same sea zone as the units it intends to load?

Actually a transport may move, pick up troops and either drop them off or move again and drop them off. Once a transport unloads though it must stay in that sea zone until the following turn.