Scramble - combat sequence?

@barnee Thank you very much Barnee. This is the first time this situation has come up, so we wanted to do it right.

The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.

@Navymule:

I stand corrected.  However, they (USSR) could declare war upon Japan and then attack a neutral such as Turkey, right?

No again, sorry:

@rulebook:

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the
Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions
of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map, and Axis powers on
the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of
war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese
units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on
the Europe map, …

@ShadowHAwk:

Well you could move 1 step forward capturing a contry and then move 1 step back. Sort of capturing a country without actualy ending up there.

Yes, but that happens during the combat move. Once the non-combat move phase comes around, that particular tank can not move again. It has to wait until that player’s next turn.

As someone who has had to read a LOT of pages of rules related to AAG40 (but WHAT a fun game!), the answer to your question is referenced here, in the AA 1940 Pacific Rules FAQ (page 4):

"Q. Let’s say I’m doing an amphibious assault and there are no enemy ships in the sea zone
around the island I’m attacking, but the island has an airbase and enemy fighters. Can I move
extra ships and planes into the sea zone along with my transports that won’t support the
assault just in case my opponent decides to scramble the fighters to defend the sea zone?
What about if there’s only an enemy sub in the sea zone? Can I move a destroyer in along with
my transport just to keep the sub from getting a free shot at it, even though the destroyer will
not participate in the assault?

A. Yes, in both cases. You may move units into a sea that presents a danger to your units during
combat movement, even though they may not actually end up fighting. Just the chance that there will
be combat is enough to allow it."

Attached is that FAQ for your review, and happy gaming!

AA 1940 Pacific Rules FAQ.pdf

Yeah, that was a massive FAIL for Failure is not an option….

Yeah, that is correct.

@AdmiralNagano:

The way I remember it is that, if a plane can theoretically land at the very end of the turn, it can attack.

The only exception to that is a retreat. If you use a carrier in an attack, you can’t assume that you will retreat on some combat round and thus allow your fighter land on it. Other than that, yes, if it can theoretically land, even if a battle is required to be won (like 1 sub versus 1000 battleships) then it can land.