Possible to retreat from a space where an air unit came from?

@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.

Func has it right, that C-Sub paper is super old and makes alot of bad assumptions….it needs an edit.  Obviously if Japan drops absolutely everything to deal with India than the Russians should help out.  In any case, if the Japs put everything into a J3 attack and lose some planes to the aa then sometimes the Russians can simply liberate it and UK can build there on the same turn.

I’m not really big on India for the reasons outlined above–it ties down valuable hardware in an area of secondary strategic value, and if Japan plays it right UK is forced into a defensive posture there.  Still, it is fun to play and every good A&A player should give it a try–just preferably not against your toughest adversary.

These days I hardly buy any UK factories unless its late game and UK has the cash to spare…but if you are going to go with a factory UK1 then India is probably the most interesting option.

The attacker retreats before the defender submerges, in both OOB and LHTR.

This is clearly spelled out in the LHTR rules.  However, since the sequence is never specifically stated in the OOB rules, the general principle that the attacker acts first must be applied.

I retreat when it would be foolish not to.

Ah yes, so much wisdom I have…

Once air units engage in battle, they can hit and be hit by any unit in the territory.

The only exception of course is that SUBs cannot fire on FIGs or BOMs at all.

Yea, well they still need to get there. :P

@ncscswitch:

You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…

**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**  …

Go ahead, play test it a few times.  You will quickly see what I mean.

Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

It really depends on the situation. CVs are good at defending SZs and allowing transports to pass through, but poor at attacking convoys/fleets. Good in a forced battle, such as in landing on the enemy coast, where he has to attack you to protect his country. Plus, the fighters can fly to the mainland in an emergency and assist in landings. BBs can be helpful in attacking the enemy fleet for 1 round, using them to soak hits, then retreating (and repairing). SSs are the most efficient in a win-or-die naval(only) scenario, but can be attacked by aircraft with no chance to fire back. I would only use SSs to hassle convoys by not letting them load/unload, and then using them to soak hits. DDs both attack and defend on 3, so they are versatile in both defending a SZ and attacking one, but I wouldn’t build them if I had something specific in mind.

But really, you can’t ask that question without TPs. An analysis of a naval battle without TPs is useless, really, because why have a navy if no TPs are involved at all? It’s necessary to take into account that 1 attack that hits both air and sea for 8 IPC, after unloading troops. It’s also necessary to understand that if one has been substalled, then using transports to take hits doesn’t become efficient.

My 2 cents, AK