Retreating from a combined amphibious assault and land attack. Is it possible?

@krieghund

Thank you!

@Imperious-Leader

Its a good balance of realism and gameplay. Larry Harris addresses this in his new interview with Gary Blevins/Board Game Nation.

That’s what i’d try to avoid messing up. I really like Conflict of Heroes but there are dynamics in it like VC, command cards, facing, terrain that are too much for this game. I think GW/WaW look interesting but they also seem like a giant collectible, a mess of complex rules, and way to much detail for a game that people are actually intended to play.

I’m in an avalon hill (old school) group and they’re all like “why doesn’t anyone play with me” and its because the games are too complex, ugly, boring, imbalanced, and riddled with eratta and problems–only 30,000 people in the entire country acutally want to sit down and play them rather than get nostalgic about how great (awful) most of them are.

@Soviet-Steamroller said in Attacking an empty sea zone?:

Hi there,
As i’m reviewing the scramble rule a question came to my mind.
Can i assign planes to a sea zone with no ennemy warships just as a safety against scramble?

Bringing units against a potential scramble is a valid combat move, indeed.
Rulebook Pacific 1940.2 page 13

… Further, if enemy air units could potentially be scrambled to defend the sea zone, additional units may be moved into the sea zone to combat them in case they are indeed scrambled.

@wittman
Where are you from, if I may ask?

They’re are three territories in USSR far worth a total of 3 ICP that Japan and take over and still not piss of Mongolia. I have only ever seen a player do this once but Japan and USSR not going to war is usually very useful for Japan as it keeps a front close and 9/10 times, USSR will be the one to invade which turns Mongolia into a strict neutral.

@Gargantua:

If your sub fails, and the other sub survives you must retreat.

Even if the attacking sub doesn’t sink the enemy’s sub, the transports can still do debarkment.
It needs only that the other sub submerge.

Thanks Krieghund. My friends and I don’t play often enough so we all have to brain storm to remember the rules.

I tried it already:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.75

It wasn’t one of my better games and I doubt it should be used as a guideline (think it was my third Global?)

I wouldn’t recommend it under the current True Neutral rules unless Germany or Japan seriously sends some loaded transports and a carrier group to contest S. America (and be willing to invest in a minor IC as well).  It’s just too much bonus to the US with all those extra free infantry produced.  Japan could send a loaded transport(s) to take Chile on J3 in conjunction with an attack on Pearl Harbor; if Germany is threatening a Sealion and the US is built heavily into the Europe theater, it might work.  You could also try a combined assault with Germany attacking from Gibraltar on G3 to seize Brazil or Argentina while Japan invades Chile; if you combine both carrier groups together and both powers built minor ICs, it could tie up the US for quite a while.  It will also be a huge drain on the Axis war effort too, for a measly 8 S. American IPCs, but it might be worth it if it takes the US out of the war for another 4-5 turns.