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

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.