TWW 3.0.9? NTSH (ax) v (al) ubernaut Game 4
-
@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.
-
-
@malmessi can you share the combat move or before combat autosave?
-
@Nothingtoseehere we’ll have to do it later im gonna be tied up for the next few hours
-
Nothingtoseehere said:
This links to the save file at the end of cm. I'm available for now.
-
@Nothingtoseehere im around now did you change anything?
-
@ubernaut No
-
@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
"You should never have told me horses sleep standing up, it gave me a mental block." - Mister Ed
-
@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
-
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
-
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.
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 speical rule in TWW (?).
-
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.)?
-
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.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login