Game set-Up:
Bid Spending.jpg
PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al)
-
Strangely, the rules for scrambling to defend against sea-borne attack from an air field and a CV are different.
To be fair to everyone, you can reconsider the attack, and you if decide to go through with, inform me of what units are doing what. I can then decide whether to scramble or, if applicable kamikaze. The combat would have to be rolled on the forum.
-
@artofwar1947 Yes, I know that rules are different for an airport and CV, but did not know that these allies ships will just sit there and watch Japanese Zero go ahead and shoot those Australians down. I am now reading the rules online, but can’t fight this clarification. We can do as you suggest, but it would still be good to know for the future - do you know where this is in the rulebook? Also, note that this is already a friend seazone.
If we are going on with your suggestion, I will attack:
1 inf + 1 art to Guam
1 fighter + 1 bomber to Guam
1 destroyer + 2 fighters + 1 tactical to seazone 22 -
On p. 15, under Scramble: Scrambled planes "may defend against the enemy ships conducting the amphibious assault even if friendly ships are not present. The operative phrase is ‘conducting the amphibious assault.’ Other ships friendly to the attacker are not a part of the assault.
I’ll get back to this tomorrow.
-
@artofwar1947 Hm, still not clear, but you are more experienced with this, so I trust that.
Please run the dice on the forum once you decide, I don’t know how to do that.
-
@nikola1975 said in PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al):
Hm, still not clear, but you are more experienced with this, so I trust that.
See p. 20 on Multinational Forces: "Units on the same side can share a territory or sea zone, constituting a multinational force. Such forces can DEFEND together, BUT THEY CAN’T ATTACK TOGETHER. ANZAC was the attacker, NOT the US fleet.
Recommend you run a simulation of the situation (i.e., set up the situation and lay it through in local game).
2 ANZAC infantry @1: [dice 2d6]
ANZAC fighter & bomber @3 [dice 2d6]
J fighter @4 [dice 1d6]
-
2d6: 3, 3
2d6: 6, 6
1d6: 1 -
@artofwar1947 said in PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al):
Round 2:
1 ANZAC infantry @1: [dice 1d6]
ANZAC fighter & bomber @3 [dice 2d6]
J fighter @4 [dice 1d6] -
1d6: 1
-
Round 2:
1 ANZAC infantry @1: [dice 1d6]
ANZAC fighter & bomber @3 [dice 2d6]
J fighter @4 [dice 1d6]
-
1d6: 5
2d6: 1, 3
1d6: 6 -
No hits by ANZAC in round 1; 1 hit by J fighter in Round 1.
2 hits by ANZAC in round 2; 0 hits by J fighter in Round 2.Will edit out 1 ANZAC on Guam.
-
You actually had an infantry and arty attacking, but the outcome is the same.
triplea_37932_J-21.tsvg -
Hello, check out scramble decisions - Africa and Pacific.
-
Scramble 3 fighters from Algeria and 1 from SZ 94 (4 all together) to Morocco.
No Pacific scrambles.
-
-
-
@artofwar1947 How did you attack with a fighter which was not able to land? That was not a legal move. Don’t tell me that you tried to sink a whole fleet with that one sub and then get through with a carrier to land on it :)
-
That is the rule exactly.
-
Well, planes can only move if they are able to land after the battle phase. You are not allowed to send fighters on a suicide mission.
Sending sub on a theoretical mission to sink the whole fleet and counting on that is a suicide mission. There is no way you could have expected that the sub will win that battle and that you will be able to pick up the fighter with a carrier after that.
You are using a lie to a fighter pilot, to me, and to yourself, in order to win the battle (and a game). Is this the way you want to play the game? I think not.
-
The rules specify that a fighter can move to move make an attack if a carrier COULD be there for it to land. The attacking sub makes it possible, however unlikely, the CV could be there for it to land. This strategy was used against me early on and has been explained in nthe League General Discussion. Granted the rule does not make sense, but as a player, I do not get to chose only rules that I like.
Suggested Topics
