Can a damaged carrier keep attacking in round 2 of the sea battle in an amphibious assault?

@ShadowHAwk:

@wittmann:

1. Yes.
2. Yes. Each scrambling Fighter would get one roll of 4 to hit and sink one TT, with its cargo onboard. On the next turn the attacker could retreat any surviving Transports. (Or stay and try an be sunk again, naturally,)
3. A Sub is ignored, unless a Scramble happens, then it is in the fight.
You did realise, however, that a Sub forbids an amphibious assault, if the Transport(s) is not escorted?

Where is that rule in the book? I heared from it but in my game this weekend i could not find it.

Thought that transports can only ignore subs if they got a warship sailing with them.

See the rulebook:
@rulebook:

Transports
….
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.

So the requirement of an escorting warship applies to the ability to unload troops (not to ignore a submarine).

HTH :-)

Lots of good options for G1 builds, but here are my personal thoughts.  Two bombers can help Sea Lion in the following way:

Clean up residual ships on G2 to prevent ship blocks Bomb London on G2, doing ~9 points of additional damage to the factory which reduces the number of infantry built on UK2. Join in on the London raid on G3, contributing 8 more attack power (equivalent of 2 transports loaded with infantry + art) for approximately the same purchase cost Attack the Russian response on G4-G5; bomb Russian factories along the front. Attack the US Navy trying to liberate UK on G4-G10ish

Additionally the two bombers are quite useful to bomb Moscow and support a Barbarosa if Sea Lion is not an option.  It is not as optimal of a build of 6 art + 2 inf for marching into Russia, but still is very beneficial.

:-D

You’re welcome  :-)

Well done gentlemen, always trying to recruit new War at Sea players.

@Cmdr:

I like bizarre moves.  For non-regulation games (non-tournament, non-league) because it puts the other player off and might show you something neat that you can use for regulation play.

I’ve seen MANY players land Germany in Brazil and put a complex there.  Good way to annoy the crud out of America (Italy would be better, but sometimes they’re not in a position too.)

Seen invasions of Canada as well (in Alpha 3.9 no less!) with mixed effects.  What happened there, once, was that the landing happened, America went full ground forces and japan sunk the American navy - it was a suicide move, but it worked.  Germany lost like 200IPC worth of ground units, but AMerica lost at least that much in naval units, probably more.

So bizarre moves have their purpose.  Canadian shield was bizarre, then mainstream, then bizarre again.  (And yes, I’ve been known to pull it out once or twice in a “classic” game since nO ONE sees it coming anymore!)

The US navy could not sneak out of the Pacific?

Just Italy vs UK.

Thanks for the post, Frank.  Yep, you pretty much summed up a few of the many reasons why OOB is fatally flawed, and you have the 30-35 games to back it up.

I get the feeling from my few games of Alpha2 so far (not going too crazy playing it - just a couple games at a time because it will probably be changed anyway) that the Allies still have a significant advantage in Alpha2.  But I have to admit none of the games have lasted even more than a few rounds (with the Axis getting obliterated each time) so maybe those oil field NO’s could really come into play sometimes I suppose.

To me, Russia and USA have suffocating power (Russia is very deep, and as Larry himself acknowledged - he wondered if it was 1 territory too deep), and the UK can be very powerful as well.

Hainan Island.