Submarines and cargo or transport in SZ (v3)
-
In v3, when submarines are in a sea zone, is it possible that an alone cargo or transport can disembark troops in that SZ? Engine gives an advise; Units cannot fight / Units in the following territories will die in SZ x xxx sea. If that's the advice, why engine allowed to disembark troops? When transport asked to fight or not to fight, just pressing not to fight allowed disembark troops. But isn't clear the advice? If there is a sub it shouldn't allowed troops to disembark in that sea zone, they should be killed with its cargo in combat move, Is it correct? Cargo or transport have "0" possibility to attack, then cannot land troops when there is a sub. That possibility from transport to decide to attack or not has not meaning, those simple cannot attack! So why exist that chance to disembark? Defender (sub) is who decide if attack or not when transport has "0" possibility to attack.
-
This topic has two sides:
- The Rules
- TripleA's message
The Rules:
In v3 a lonely transport can enter a sea zone that contains only an enemy submarine and unload for an amphibious assault. The enemy submarine does not make a seazone hostile and can be ignored by the transport. It is in later rulesets, where a transport needs to be escorted by a warship to allow for unloading troops in case of the presence of an enemy submarine. In v3 the transport only needs an escort of a unit with an attack value when it would choose to attack in a sea battle.The Message:
The message you pointed out indeed is irritating but not entirely wrong. In case the transport chooses to ignore the submarine (in fact this is the only option it has) and unloads troops for an amphibious assault, the transport will not die (immediately). At least not during the attacker's turn. As it can choose to ignore the submarine and simply unload.
On the submarine's turn however the transport will be autodestroyed in case the submarine chooses to attack the transport. Only in this case the above message makes sense.
Of course the lonely transport with its cargo cannot fight in that SZ so TripleA should indeed not ask whether the transport would attack the submarine. That is one of the many rules issues incorrectly handled by the engine -
@panther Thanks for answering my question, the v3 rules allowed a transport to cross a SZ with a sub without a problem, but to remain there and disembark its incorrect I suppose after the advice set in image in my first paragraph. In other versions automatically set the transport with its cargo out of the SZ and ask in which SZ to place it (not in v3 as I realize gaming this scenario). Make a test and after the advice engine ask to attack sub or not (transport has "0" chance to attack) and just press not and so easy it disembark troops.. But you said "Of course the lonely transport with its cargo cannot fight in that SZ so TripleA should indeed not ask whether the transport would attack the submarine. That is one of the many rules issues incorrectly handled by the engine." But doing a test it appear that a frame asking that action (added an image below). Other issue I noted is that if you send a fighter into the SZ, that cannot attack sub but cheat the engine, the advice frame (from my first inquire with a frame image) doesn't appear at all... My point is that something is wrong in this v3 action... Transport can cross SZ with a sub in there but shouldn't remain and land troops in that SZ, as it should expel transport as in other versions (probably not in v2 where transport can defend at 1 and just take the risk...). Thanks and greets.
-
@raville said in Submarines and cargo or transport in SZ (v3):
Thanks for answering my question, the v3 rules allowed a transport to cross a SZ with a sub without a problem, but to remain there and disembark its incorrect
No, again, a lonely submarine does not make the seazone hostile. So the transport is in a friendly seazone (ignoring the sub). It may unload for an amphibious assault. Actually it must unload, as otherwise the move would not be a rules compliant combat move.
This is not by my imagination but clearly worded in the rulebook of the respective boardgame.
@raville said in Submarines and cargo or transport in SZ (v3):
My point is that something is wrong in this v3 action... Transport can cross SZ with a sub in there but shouldn't remain and land troops in that SZ, as it should expel transport as in other versions.
Which versions? In v4 it is the same as in v3. And in v5, v6 and the 1940 games the transport still may stay and offload troops for an amphibious assault. But from v5 on to do so the transport needs to be accompanied by a warship at the end of combat move phase to be able to offload for an amphibious assault. As - again - a seazone containing only ignored submarines is friendly.
All of this is clearly stated in the respective rulebooks without room for interpretation.
TripleA can of course create confusion - many procedures are simply incorrect (rule-wise).
@raville said in Submarines and cargo or transport in SZ (v3):
Transport can cross SZ with a sub in there but shouldn't remain and land troops in that SZ, as it should expel transport as in other versions
Are you confusing this with the "Sea Units starting in Hostile Sea Zone"-rules of the rulebooks?
Those do not apply here, as the seazone containing only one (or more) enemy submarine(s) by the rules is not hostile. Even if the transport would start its move here, those rules would not apply, as the seazone in question still is not hostile.One of the engine problems is, that Triple A marks seazones as "hostile" that - by the rules - are not hostile. Another one is that TripleA incorrectly allows Non Combat Moves during Combat Move phase. All of this and many other issues have to be carefully monitored by the players.
The written rules are clear - but I agree, TripleA sometimes is far from being clear and rules compliant.
So is the "advice" screen from your first posting. Most irritating, simply needless and wrong in parts.
-
@panther Thank you for answer and advice on rules & TA engine, send you greetings, Raville
