Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6
-
@Hepps Well wanted to confirm that Japan should receive the factory/engineer and then I was "teaching" you why it isn't working
-
@Hepps note he is "teaching" again
this means he has returned from his hiatus? -
Is it supposed to be allowed to move naval fighters their whole range to a battle where you are sending a carrier? It could lead to them not having a place to land if the attacker retreats, which makes me think it might be one of those things the engine allows that you're supposed to enforce yourself
-
@colin no you are allowed to assume no losses for the purposes of combat movement.
-
@colin I would need to see an example of what you are asking as there are examples where the engine will allow you to move naval fighters where it should be considered illegal. Some of the validations the engine does for landing aircraft are not in keeping with the rules.
-
@Hepps If TWW fully follows any basic rule regarding limitations related to being able to land for movement of air units then this
Is it supposed to be allowed to move naval fighters their whole range to a battle where you are sending a carrier? It could lead to them not having a place to land if the attacker retreats, which makes me think it might be one of those things the engine allows that you're supposed to enforce yourself
is always allowed, during Combat Move, as long as you will be able to land each of the fighters, as well as every other air unit of the turn power, that is launched (which, from v2 LHTR onwards, means all air units of the turn power), assuming you will win all the battles you make not losing any units.
Then, during Conduct Combat, you can freely take casualties and make retreat choices whether or not this will cause one or more of the launched air units to be unable to land.
Substantially, you are an humanitarian during Combat Move, but turn into a cynic as soon as Conduct Combat starts.
In the example, moving fighters of their full movement into a battle in a zone and sending into the same zone the carriers needed to land them, then retreating from the zone, during Conduct Combat, thus assuring the fighters will be unable to land anywhere, is a legal move.
-
@Cernel well one could argue that that's fine. Retreat often make units move further than they could otherwise. Good old Forward-Retreat: Have a slow army at the front and one tank attacking from behind, retreat. Whoops, your slow army just got teleported behind enemy lines.
-
@Gully not so sure i follow that analogy but this really isn't a TWW question perhaps @Panther might be willing to chime in here.
-
@ubernaut and @Cernel have layed out the general rule(s) correctly.
@Gully said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:
Have a slow army at the front and one tank attacking from behind, retreat. Whoops, your slow army just got teleported behind enemy lines.
But that is a consequence of the retreat rules (retreat everything to a zone where at least one unit came from) and totally independent from what moves are allowed during Combat Move Phase. Also those units are not "teleported" from their initial position but move just one step further after surviving one or more rounds of combat - when retreating from the space the combat took place, as every attacking unit involved does, provided there has been a retreat option.
-
@Gully said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:
@Cernel well one could argue that that's fine.
As far as the basic games go (and I'm not mistaken), this is not an argument. Just the "must have a chance to land" rules do not exist once you are in the "Conduct Combat" phase (you can choose casualties and decide retreats without having to think about what you need to land at all).
-
just wondering if transports are meant to be able to launch amphibious assault versus a defending sub with no support.
-
@ubernaut Yes. Because in this game you have the ability to decide whether or not you want to attack a sub or not.
-
@Hepps seems strange that the sub couldn't defend versus a unit that cannot attack but thanks for clarifying.
-
@ubernaut Yes but remember that in this game subs don't really take posession of the sea zones, do not block movement and themselves can avoid a fight at any opportunity. When you combine that with the idea that they are primarily an offensive weapon. It kinda makes sense that they aren't really patrolling while on the defensive or while not their turn. Plus this was a by-product of the design to work with the engine options available that made all the behaviors operate optimally.
-
@Hepps gotcha thanks again.
does that mean that behavior might be modified in the 2.0 future or no? -
@ubernaut Nothing really planned atm. To be honest I am sooo busy... other than looking in on the forum every morning I haven't really looked at any TA stuff in ages. Sadly.
-
@Hepps gotcha
-
@Hepps said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:
@ubernaut Nothing really planned atm. To be honest I am sooo busy... other than looking in on the forum every morning I haven't really looked at any TA stuff in ages. Sadly.
he is probably working on GD, which should come out any day *duckandcover
-
@wirkey GD?
-
Global Dominance. A mammoth project for people who think the step from the A+A boardgame to TWW was just way too small. Come on, the map can't be that small. People like you and me, that is.
