Posts made by Col. Flagg

So, the example stated above was if the warship started in a naval base, the transport was next to the NB sea zone, and the submarine was next to the transport sea zone, and you guys went through all the scenarios.

Consider this scenario: the transport and warship started together in a naval base, and the submarine was in the sea zone next to the naval base.  If the warship and transport move into the sub’s zone together (move 1), move out of the sub’s zone together (move 2), and then split up (move 3), the submarine would get a shot even though they are well out of it’s range?  It simplifies I suppose, but makes little sense.

I was about to say that no unit has had this power of controlling adjacent zones, but then I remembered Battle of the Bulge where units had zones of control.  But, is applying the small scale battle rules to the large scale war rules make sense?

So, what about “it’s (the transport’s) entire move through submarine patrolled sea zones.”

You said “build land troops in FIC”: is this on J2?  Because you’re not allowed to place a factory in a newly captured territory, correct?  So are you putting the minor IC in Manchuria or Kiangsu (one of the 3 IPC territories)?

On a side note, I wish tactical bombers were able to bomb air/naval bases (not factories).  According to my grandpa’s carrier’s war journal, they did a lot of airfield attacks, so it would only make sense to have that ability, and it would better justify the 11 IPC cost, since some people think that is too much.

So, the turn order is Japan, US, China, UK, then ANZAC, and the situation would be that UK and ANZAC take their turns without attacking Japan (and no DoW), then it’s Japan’s turn and they don’t declare war, and at the end of Japan’s turn the UK and ANZAC say “Surprise! Convoy attack” and Japan is unable to do anything about it (and couldn’t/wouldn’t during their turn).  That sounds kind of unfair, so I think there has to be a DoW on the UK/ANZAC turns or Japan has to declare war on UK/ANZAC that turn.  If it was legal, then the UK/ANZAC could move a bunch of ships into convoy zones and threaten to disrupt a lot of IPCs and force Japan to attack (if they wanted to stop it) and bring the US in, which would not be favorable for Japan.  Thus it seems fair that you have to declare war on your turn and then you’re allowed to disrupt.

And with China, the UK/ANZAC can declare war before their Combat Move, not make any aggressive moves against Japan if they wish/can’t, and then move into China.

Ok, so what if a warship moves into the zone the transport starts from and then moves with it into the zone the sub is, is it “escorted?”  And does the warship have to leave the sea zone with the transport to continue the escorting?

I suppose the original question was what major changes from AA50 have occurred, but it evolved into clarifying this strange rule that breaks at least two fundamentals: combat during the non-combat phase (which is why I thought they changed the AA rules a long time ago for flying over an AA gun) and using the sub’s attack value when it is not that player’s turn.

I guess another question is, what does “unescorted” mean?  Can a surface warship come from a sea zone that the transport did not originate from to enter the “sub defended” territory and thus escort the transport?  Also, what does “through” mean?  Does the sub only attack if the transport enters and leaves the “sub defended” sea zone, or is it when it enters (which would seem to mean that the escort must start with the transport)?

EDIT: OK, the rulebook says “the sub can attack any transport that moves INTO or THROUGH its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warships.”  So it’s when the transport enters.  But the question still stands, does the escort have to start with the transport in the same sea zone?

Under the Submarine section at the end of the rules with the Units description.

I understand that the FAQ and rulebook (when not adjusted by errata) are correct, but I’d like to have a page that highlights changes for veterans, since I would never have seen this rule without seeing the FAQ post on it.  Such as tanks cost 6 now, which I’ll have to get my head around.  And AA guns are only for “regular” combat, while factories have their own AA for ONLY strategic bombing.

There is a paragraph on this in the rulebook, that “defending” subs (not the current player’s turn) can “attack” (1 round of dice rolling) the current player’s UNESCORTED transports with a roll of 2 (which is their ATTACK value, which adds to the confusion).  For every hit, 1 transport is removed, then the current player can continue with their move.  AND, this is during both COMBAT and NONCOMBAT (when fighting does not take place) movement…Holy crap, who added this rule.  What happened to KISS?

I was about to make a topic about this statement in the FAQ until I went back and read the rulebook:

Q.  If a (power) with which I’m not at war moves an unescorted transport through a sea zone where I have a submarine, can I attack it?
A.  No.  However, if that power is making a combat movement that will result in war with you, you are already considered to be at war and may attack it.

From my understanding, this is a change from AA50, where the attacker could always ignore subs and the defending subs have no choice (thus preventing sub stalling).  But now, unescorted transports can be hit on a one-to-one basis by defending subs on a roll of 2 (which is their attack value while they would normally be defending …whew).  I guess I should be faulted for not reading the entire rulebook (I only read the parts that seemed new and were highlighted on here).

Are there any other significant changes from AA50 (that are not obvious, like war declaration) that should be highlighted here?  I know about carriers now taking 2 hits, and battleships and carriers require repair now (which is at the end of the turn, right?)

Rolls: 2@2 3@3; Total Hits: 22@2: (1, 1)3@3: (4, 4, 5)
Rolls: 4@2; Total Hits: 24@2: (2, 6, 4, 1)

Yeah that was your game  :-)

Unfortunately, a certain open source game shut down by a certain, idiotic company doesn’t allow that move, which reinforced my confusion.

I saw this in a forum game and was confused.

In round 1, Japan sent a fighter from Japan to the Hawaii sea zone, which is 4 moves, BUT he didn’t move his carrier into the zone.  The reasoning was if the fighter died, then he could move the carrier elsewhere, but if it lived, then he had to move it in.  So, is this legal?  I thought you had to demonstrate the fighter has a place to land before you end the Combat/Noncombat movement phase.

I have a question about territories that I don’t believe has been answered yet.  I don’t have the game yet, so it’s just based on pictures and such.

Since there are 2 scenarios, and the map itself is “set up” for the 1941 scenario, when you play the 1942 scenario where Germany has expanded and the setup boards instruct you to place down nation markers, if you take those territories as the UK/US, do they go to you or to the USSR, because they are USSR color and belonged to them in 1941?