We need an allied playbook.

@shadowhawk said in Defenceless transport rules need revision:

Currently if i got 100 transport and the enemy attacks with 1 sub, but i have an airbase and 1 fighter i can scramble. At that point i do have a unit that can shoot back so the rule does not apply and the enemy has to make 100kills with the sub.

No. Fighter and submarine can’t hit each other - so the transports are still defenseless.

Rulebook Europe 1940 2nd , page 20:

“Defenseless Transports
In a sea battle, if the defender has only transports
remaining and the attacker still has units capable
of attacking, the defending transports are all
destroyed, along with their cargo. You don’t have
to continue rolling dice until all the transports
receive hits. This will speed up combats. This also
occurs if the only combat units remaining can’t hit
each other. For example, if the defender has only
transports and submarines remaining, and the
attacker has only air units remaining, the air units
and submarines can’t hit each other, so the trans-
ports are defenseless. At this point, defenseless
transports are all destroyed, along with their cargo.
Attacking transports are not usually considered
defenseless, since they generally have the option
of retreating. If they can’t retreat, they are treated
the same as defending transports. Destroying
defenseless transports in this way still counts as
combat for the purpose of offshore bombardment
and similar rules.”

@shadowhawk said in Defenceless transport rules need revision:

Or if i got 20AA guns and the enemy attacks with 1 mech. Do we really want to roll dies till he hits 20x a 1?

No, as the same rulebook says on page 29:

“If a territory containing AAA units and no combat units is attacked, the AAA units are automatically destroyed after they fire (see “Air Defense”, below), but if only air units are attacking, at least one of them must survive the Air Defense in order to destroy the AAA. AAA units may never attack.”

Bomber in Moscow, possible 1 more fighter or Fighter-Bomber but near manchuria
Remove some Japanese planes, but replace them with another ship(s), probably combination of transport ( AP) and more infantry
Add BB in Hawaii
Combine the Italian fleet so it cant be wiped out
Possible add 1-2 infantry in or near Egypt for UK

it says “and/or” and it is the most common way to phrase such a requirements in games.

for basic gramar;
a, b and c = a and b and c;
a,b or c = a or b or c;
a and/or b = means if you have a and b, its ok, if you have a, its ok, if you have b, its ok.
same way you can make a list.

i would also rather fight on his turf where i get income generating for as long as possible. once you have to back down that’s when you are basically saying, “I lose moscow sooner or later.”

@Alsch91:

Normally I think UK could take back both Shan State and Yunnan on UK 3 before pulling back to Calcutta.
Thus your planes have no landing spot.

Might be costly, but also might be worth it for the reasons you suggested.

@JimmyHat:

I think you can attack unescorted transports, because they would not have any larger combat ships to hide behind.  This would be the only occurrence though because the kamikaze pilots are trained to go for the big combat vessels and not the weak, cheap transport vessels.

No, you can’t.  The errata has not overridden the pac40 rulebook, and the errata applies to Alpha 2.  Alpha 2 only changed the triggers to kamis but it didn’t change how they work.
Kamis can only target surface warships, and it’s not an attack (so deceptive to call it that).  it’s ONLY a defensive action declared at the end of a combat move (not during a combat move) in exactly the same way scrambling is declared.

This also has never changed, it’s ALWAYS been if combat move ENDS in a kami symbol SZ, which ALWAYS means either combat in the seazone or an amphibious assault.  You can’t combat move if you aren’t going to conduct combat.

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.