TWW 3.0.9? NTSH (ax) v (al) ubernaut Game 4

Nothingtoseehere

@ubernaut A fewbattles with scramble and OOL decisions .

Nothingtoseehere

@malmessi said:

Hi, here again with a new question.
I attacked Berlin having one air trasp only, no other units and no def struct.
I attacked with a naval fighter and I expected to play a battle with germany defending with zero (auto win)

Question 1 Why TripleA triggered no battle ?
Question 2 My opponent says that in case of battle german fig in adjacent territories could scramble but... Whane I attack a structure defending with zero such a rail or a barrack, no scramble should trigger so...

My opponent says that maybe air trasp dies only if I conquer but on the other hand... when air trasp is involved in an attack PlayerEnforcedRule says it mut die as last casualty and I thought that being air trasp the only units in Berlin... the german air trasp dying as last casualty would die immediately.

Can you clarify a few things? So I'm guessing you attacked with a Air transport with a Paratrooper, because without one you shouldn't get Berlin. Is that correct?
The engine is kind of stupid about Paradrops (and maybe also amphibious assaults) against no defenders. If there are scrambling airfileds and planes in a neighbouring territory, the engine offers to scramble them before combats but then the territory changes owners, and no battle takes place in the combat phase. So the player-enforced rule and what the engine decides to do agree that there should not be a battle if there are no defenders before the attacker moves in. So that makes your/your friend's second question irrelevant.

malmessi

@Nothingtoseehere

No, I attacked with a Us naval fighter in Berlin
In Berlin only one german air trasp was present and I expected to win because air trasp was defending with zero...
Did not want to conquer, my opponent is not so kind, just wanted to kill the air trasp...

Nothingtoseehere

@malmessi Ok sorry, I don't know about that scenario. But I suppose that if the engine doesn't start a combat, then there shouldn't be one.

ubernaut

@Nothingtoseehere yo

ubernaut

@malmessi can you share the combat move or before combat autosave?

ubernaut

@Nothingtoseehere we’ll have to do it later im gonna be tied up for the next few hours

Nothingtoseehere

Nothingtoseehere said:

@ubernaut A fewbattles with scramble and OOL decisions .

This links to the save file at the end of cm. I'm available for now.

ubernaut

@Nothingtoseehere im around now did you change anything?

Nothingtoseehere

@ubernaut No

ubernaut

@panther we had an odd situation i believe i/we made the right call but just wanted to double check with you

in the first version of this battle ( the transjordan one) @Nothingtoseehere made a retreat with his paratroopers to syria. i declared that an illegal retreat since there were no ground forces in the battle to retreat with other than his amphibious assault inf. that's correct yeah? bc the engine allowed it.

another odd thing about this battle the engine seems to allow his transport unloading an amphibious assault to retreat from sz 53 to sz 72 (the red sea) even though that path is not crossable for his side since i hold the canal

malmessi

@ubernaut said:

@malmessi can you share the combat move or before combat autosave?

Sure, I am a good play tester ah ah Us13 turn is what you have to check in ShowHistory

John ALL - Enry AX Usa13.tsvg

malmessi

Maybe I solved, manaul says air trasp is a sort of structure and can be bombed,
Not realistic but now I know why TripleA did not trigger a combat

Panther

@ubernaut said:

in the first version of this battle ( the transjordan one) @Nothingtoseehere made a retreat with his paratroopers to syria. i declared that an illegal retreat since there were no ground forces in the battle to retreat with other than his amphibious assault inf. that's correct yeah? bc the engine allowed it.

Unless specific rules apply for TWW (I don't know), ~~this~~ your decision is correct for the core games (V3, Global1940).

another odd thing about this battle the engine seems to allow his transport unloading an amphibious assault to retreat from sz 53 to sz 72 (the red sea) even though that path is not crossable for his side since i hold the canal

Sounds odd to me, too. Also it sounds irregular to me, that unloading for an amphibious assault as a consequence of a retreat into a territory that had not been declared during the Conduct Combat Phase should be allowed - but that might be a special rule in TWW (?).

Cernel

@Panther said:

@ubernaut said:

in the first version of this battle ( the transjordan one) @Nothingtoseehere made a retreat with his paratroopers to syria. i declared that an illegal retreat since there were no ground forces in the battle to retreat with other than his amphibious assault inf. that's correct yeah? bc the engine allowed it.

Unless specific rules apply for TWW (I don't know), this is correct for core games.

Are you thinking about V3 paratroopers or 1940 paratroopers (beside Classic 3rd Edition paratroopers: I'm sure you are not thinking about those.)?

Cernel

I'm asking because, in the case detailed by @ubernaut, I'm fairly certain that retreat is not possible under V3 rules. My understanding is that you need to start the battle with at least 1 non-offloaded and non-paratrooped land unit (which I understand was not present in this case) for your paratroopers to retreat wherever that unit can retreat or could have retreated if it survived.

Panther

@Cernel

In V3 Paratroopers may retreat if attacking along with land units from adjacent territories.
As this was not given in that specific case. I confirmed @ubernaut 's decision.

Just for completeness: Paratroopers in Global 1940 may retreat if attacking along with land units from
adjacent territories, too.

I reworded my above answer a bit, to make clear, that 'correct' referred to @ubernaut 's decision - and not to what the engine seemed to have allowed, provided we are under a v3 or Global1940 ruleset.

Cernel

@Panther Yah, thanks. It was not clear to me if the correct was for the program or @ubernaut's. I'll take a look at the save (Haven't.) and consider if to make a problem report.

Cernel

Yes, there is definitely a program problem here. The program allows paratroopers to retreat whence their air transports entered the embattled territory if they did so from a land zone (in this case, Syria). I'm fairly certain this is not a TWW thing, but I'll test it using V3 just to make sure (as that would also be a better reference for a problem report).