Quick sub question

The fact that a BB can take a hit is factored into it’s cost, so it is expected that you would soak up hits with it’s ability. Remember, you paid for that when you purchased it. If you think about it like that then it is sort of like suggesting that it is bad form to hit on a 4 when you attack with a bomber, and reducing it to 3.

If you are playing with new players and are worried that they forgot about this ability and didn’t factor it into their attack plans then I would just remind them before the battle and allow them to adjust their plans if needed.

Amphibious assaults can be done in two steps, consisting of a sea battle and a land battle.  In your example, both the cruiser and the transport would attack the destroyer.  If the attackers win, the transport can offload and the land battle will occur.  If the transport ends up retreating (or being sunk), the land battle will not occur and the transport may not offload.

@Rorschach:

@Krieghund:

The territory goes to China.  The IC remains in the territory under Chinese control, but China cannot use it.  The rule that says that the IC would be destroyed is in AAP40, not AA50.

Dangit.  I guess we’re going to have to re-place that factory!  On the upside, that gives the Japanese something to shoot for (again).

Thats good News! (For Me - Im Axis)

Thank you for the clarification.

@General:

In every game of axis and allies AA I have played… Subs havebeen useless.  Nobody has ever bought any subs.  Destroyers are so esily obtained and massed with a fleet they provide cover from subs.  Germany was famed for its “wolfpack” but in AA germany doesnt even get to build a fleet unless the allies are losing hard.

Can anyone advocate the use of subs for any power in the game?

I can’t.

Sorry if I repeat someone but here goes:

Point of Submarines:

If you build a significant number of them before the enemy, and the enemy cannot keep up with destroyers, you can have a cheaper win.

Odds of Success:

Minimal at best.  Your opponent would have to be pretty dense to let you amass a huge fleet of submarines without having at least 50% that number in defensive destroyers/bonus hits on battleships to soak them.

Realistic Outcome:

Either no one has submarines, or everyone has submarines and no one has a surface fleet.  It just seems that’s where things pan out.  This is awesome since no one can really win the game without surface ships since both sides have an island capitol.

I’ve seen a search roll used, maybe in aarhe, or somewhere, where you would roll to see if you could find the enemy ships, whether subs or surface within the zone because it’s so vast, and if found, then you could shoot.  you could increase it for each sub/destroyer perhaps.

Thats what we have and have always used namely the 1:1 ratio for determining how many subs are negated and also the number of rolls for search

makes sense, thanks kreig.

and with a detroyer present, the sub cannot submerge.  makes sense.  thank you so much.

@Rammstein:

Can Chinese units be placed on a territory that it just captured? ex. If China takes Manchuria with 1 Inf remaining, can it place its “purchased” Inf on it that turn?

Yes.

@Rammstein:

If so, can US planes land on a newly captured Chinese territory?

No.  The US and China share a turn, so planes from either nation can’t land in territories captured by either one on the same turn.

@Rammstein:

Does the 3 unit limit refer to Chinese or Allies units?

Chinese units only, including the Flying Tigers.

@Rammstein:

Can a US plane attack a German sub if a UK destroyer is present?

No.  The UK destroyer will not be involved in the battle, so it doesn’t enable the plane to hit the sub.

@Rammstein:

1 Sub attacks 1 Carrier w 2 Fighters, do the Fighters roll for defence?

No, since there is no defending destroyer.

@Rammstein:

Placing Fighters on newly built Carriers: you can place newly built Fighters on newly built Carriers, right?

Yes.

@Rammstein:

Do existing Fighters have to end their movement in the territory where the Carrier is to be placed, or do they simply land on the territory where the Factory producing the carrier is? This could be important if a Fighter is low on movement.

The fighters must end their movement in the sea zone in which the carrier will be placed.

@Rammstein:

Here’s a situation that has bothered me for a while:
Let’s say that Japan has 5 Transports in a SZ (a juicy target), next to that SZ they have 3 Battleships with Destroyers, Carriers, etc… it’s huge. One SZ away from this huge Jap fleet is 1 US Carrier w 1 Fighter, and 1 Destroyer. If the Jap Transports are 3 spaces away from the US fleet, the Jap Battleships etc 2 spaces, and 1 empty SZ in between, could you attack the huge Jap fleet with your Destroyer (the assumption being you could theoretically win any battle), and plan to move your Carrier into that SZ in NC Movement, while sending your Fighter to attack the Transports?
The best way I can put it is: can you sacrifice any given warship in order to send Fighters on a suicidal attack under the assumption that your Carrier will be in range in NC Movement? Obviously, it would be worth it for the US in this case. However, the US Destroyer will obviously die, and the US Fighter will have nowhere to land. In this case, does the plane “crash”, thus allowing the US to sacrifice some units for a big payoff, or is this situation not legal at all?

It’s legal.  As long as there is any chance whatsoever, no matter how remote, that the fighter will be able to land, the move is legal.

Check out the FAQ for further information.