Sub battles pt 2

I would add that you can consider the sub rules as an exploitable loophole, but I would say they refect the very real problems subs caused in naval battles. One unaccounted sub could cause massive disruption to a naval force (hello HMS Ark Royal)

@SunTzu7:

Just wanted to check a sub rule. If a sub goes up against other non transport, non destroyer type ships (in this instance a damaged carrier and cruiser), can the sub keep doing a surprise attack till the opposition are destroyed without them firing back? That’s how my friend read the rules.

Like Brado explained, yes the sub gets a “surprise strike” each round.  But the defending carrier and cruiser do fire back every round provided it was not sunk by the sub surprise strike.

So in your example, if the sub hit, the defender would choose a casualty.  Whatever he chooses will not roll (will not fire back) but the other unit will fire back.
Subs get surprise strikes at the beginning of every single round of combat (the first round AFTER the last enemy destroyer is sunk), even when they are on defense.

If you read through Step 2 under General combat (Submarine Surprise Strike or Submerge), the rule book tells exactly how to handle sub combat and makes it very clear that surprise strike happens every round, and also how to handle surprise strike casualties.
One such sentence:
“As long as there are attacking and/or defending submarines and no opposing destroyers, this step is repeated during each round of combat.”

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

@gamerman01:

@Dark_Destroyer:

China can ignore the Neutrality rules?  I know China is a special case but… that doesn’t seem very logical.  The rules say you can move into those 2 spots… but doesn’t say you can ignore neutrality.

UK is not neutral.  She is at war with Germany and Italy.

But United Kingdom and India are 2 different powers.  The only thing they share are Techs.  United Kingdom can actually declare war on Japan and India still be Neutral…. ?

Read it nevermind lol, Uk can’t do that.  Another Illogical thing to add :(

end note  UK split = Nonsensical, really needed to do a better job at seperating the two.  When UK falls, India can not pick up IPC from fighting in the Middle East.  Very unreasonable.

Thanks for the excellent work on the charts, they’re really good. My favorite is the 2.2+ style.

To put it another way, once the battle is over, you no longer have the option of retreating.

@The:

If you oppenet selects the Cv as the OOL you always retreat and cost them the fighters it turns out better for you as you can then attack again especially if the Cv has one or two turns to take before it reaches a port

As the attacker yes, it’s great when your opponent takes the CV as a hit (and especially if they have nowhere to land the fighters).

As the defender, you don’t get the opportunity to retreat so if the attacker takes the CV as a hit, they still have more offense than they would if they lost a fighter (even if they end up losing all their fighters in the end, they have a greater chance of winning).

I guess it all depends on which side you’re on and how badly you want/need to win that naval battle.