Dumb submarine question

Kamikaze are a defensive weapon, which are resolved at the beginning of the combat phase, so the attacking air units have already launched from their carriers are not in danger (unless they are “guest” air units). As such, they will participate in combat even if their carrier is hit, and will have the remainder of their movement to land as normal afterwards.

@Gargantua:

The rulebook is half clear.  It states that all combat moves must end in combat on Page #13
Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious
assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or
air units that may be needed to support it in the case that
defending air units are scrambled (see �Scramble,� page16).

My interpretation of that is scramble or no scramble, or even no airbase, I can move whatever I want in the combat phase to a friendly seazone to support that invasion.

Your interpretation is incorrect.  You may only move units that will participate in or support the amphibious assault into a friendly sea zone.  Air and sea units that will participate in the assault include transports offloading land units, battleships and/or cruisers bombarding, and possibly a warship to escort the transports (if needed because of an enemy sub that will be ignored - bombarding battleships and/or cruisers can fulfill this role).  Supporting units can include any type of air or sea unit desired, but can only be moved there if necessary due to the possibility of a defending scramble - there being both an operative enemy air base and eligible air units present.

As others have pointed out, the same criteria apply when determining whether units beginning the turn in the sea zone may move out of it during combat movement.  Such units restricted from moving out in noncombat movement are those that were actually involved in combat and transports that offloaded.

Agree with GHG, the limitation there is because you spend so many resources and so much time building up as the USA, it just wouldn’t seem fair that you could just pick off his invasion force, which in some situations, the USA player can not replace for 2 turns or possibly, ever.      Of course, its still pretty much impossible to invade japan proper unless you are demolishing him economically and even then, it takes quite a bit of time to get the forces over there–however, japan is not the only place he can kami --how is it fair to let him kami a transport that’s coming into iwo jima to set up a US strongpoint there?

The true limitation of the kamikaze is that there are really only 4 units that can be hit by it; dd ca cv bb    (no subs, transports, or planes, so its a long list), and 2 of those things aren’t sunk by just 1 hit.

Carriers are the most vulnerable, but they don’t even have to come along, they can wait in the wings and all they bring to the battle is soak hits.

Plenty of times when the allies attack SZ 6 they do it with like 2-3 naval units and 10+ planes, so the kami isn’t effective alone in stopping him.

The reason to keep it around in Japan’s pocket is that it ruins his support shots, iirc

Its a fun flavorful rule but its just piling on because Japan doesn’t really need it in order to survive or thrive, and usually when you try to depend on it it fails miserably in a gigantic blaze of glory.  I say try n dump it (we do in G42 G41 at times)!

3 spaces left to land, it’s only 1 when you’re defending.

The only time it didn’t work for me was when my dice went sour on G5 & G6 going into Russia, But the following week it worked and everybody was rolling better, I have yet to try it with the latest 3.9 rules. So much depends on good rolls at key battles and being able to work as an Axis team.

he is including the money from siberia which is correct in the global game.  Also russia and the United States do not recieve their NO unless they are at war with a major power ie germany italy or japan.

No.  Transports may not be loaded (or unloaded) in a hostile sea zone.

The NAs from the revised rulebook are hardly compatable with AA 40