By this wording, if a tran and escort enter a sz w/ a sub, and then the escort continues the move but the tran does not, the tran is still safe because it was not alone during its move. If that’s not how you want it, perhaps you could say “if at any time during the Combat Move or Noncombat Move Phases…?”
I’ve already posted a quandary regarding move order, but your condition adds ANOTHER conundrum to it. Which means it should simply be revised to "a transport is accompanied if a warship crosses the same boundary into AND out of the subs seazone, or remains with the transport in the seazone OR a friendly warship already in that seazone before the move phase remains in that seazone until the next phase. Thus eliminating move order and length (in this rule a warship at a naval base behind COULD catch up and escort through, providing it crosses the same seazone boundaries), and keeps the element of an escort, which I thought was the whole historical point of the rule.
How about, get rid of the “through” part of the rule?
A submarine can attack any transport that moves into its sea zone unaccompanied by a surface warship moving from the same sea zone, in either the combat or noncombat move phase. A submarine may not attack, if there was an enemy surface warship in its sea zone at the start of the movement phase, and the enemy ship remains there for the entire phase. To attack, each submarine fires once (using its attack value of 2) at the transport(s). One transport must be removed by the moving player for each hit scored. Any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.
How about, get rid of the “through” part of the rule?
A submarine can attack any transport that moves into its sea zone unaccompanied by a surface warship moving from the same sea zone, in either the combat or noncombat move phase. A submarine may not attack, if there was an enemy surface warship in its sea zone at the start of the movement phase, and the enemy ship remains there for the entire phase. To attack, each submarine fires once (using its attack value of 2) at the transport(s). One transport must be removed by the moving player for each hit scored. Any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.
The reason I don’t like removing the “through” part is because you could move a warship with the transport into the seazone with the enemy sub, prevent the shot, and then choose to split up, moving the transport out alone to one seazone while the warship moves into another adjacent seazone. I would be willing to accept the warship stopping to engage the sub and that preventing the shot as well, but if it didn’t engage the sub it should be tied to the transport until the next seazone. Realistically, if you’re splitting up you wouldn’t do it in an area that’s still potentially dangerous (sub is still lurking, never engaged), leaving the transport vulnerable. You’d do that only when you crossed to safe waters.
I think the sub lurking rule was put in place to stop you from moving lone transports though a sz w/enemy subs (then it got over complicated). It sounds like the intent of the re-wright is to allow you to transfer protection of your transports to any surface war ship that can get to the hostel sz w/transport (could come from different sz). Being all movement is simultaneous, how many movement points it takes to get there shouldn’t matter. As long as the units both enter the hostel sz in the same phase (combat or non combat) tnpt will be protected.
Once your in the sz you obviously can’t abandon your tnpt or it will get shot at. I think you’ll be able to move the tpt out and leave the protector behind if you choose to.
Upon exiting again it shouldn’t matter if they stay together, or split up into separate sz once your out of the subs waters (sz). Of course if you split up upon exiting and leave your trpt unprotected the enemy will be able to destroy it on his turn w/o even taking a shot (unless your ally can cover before then).
**On a side note, say you have a fleet of 4-5 subs in one sz. Why can surface fleets just slide past them undisturbed. I think this sub lurking rule could be expanded some day. The surface fleet has the option to attack you if they have a DD (but can’t continue if it does). Why not allow the underwater dwellers the same option (one round of battle). Then the survivors up top could continue on their path (doesn’t stop movement) or search and destroy (continue battle) if they have a DD (maybe even split there force). The subs would get to fire @ 2 in the sneak attack (first rd), but then would get a def roll of 1 after that (if battle is continued). The surface fleet would return fire, but at a def roll in the fist rd (if they choose to continue the fight then the surface fleet would get their attack rolls beyond the first rd). The DD rules would also be in play. If the subs attack and there is no DD in the surface fleet then the subs gets a kill shot (def can’t return fire), if their is a DD present then all surface ships get to return fire (def rolls first rd).
**Related to the topic, it just seems unlikely that a group of subs would allow 1 DD (or a weak fleet) to escort 2-3 transports through their sz and not attack. You should have to think about the consequences of moving through sub infested waters with relativity weak fleets. Maybe we could bring back the wolf pack, where you need 3 or more subs in the same sz to sneak attack a passing surface fleet. If you destroy the escorts in your 1 round of battle (and still have a sub left) they would also lose the transports. That would make the sea’s more interesting!! :evil:
@WILD:
Being all movement is simultaneous, how many movement points it takes to get there shouldn’t matter. As long as the units both enter the hostel sz in the same phase (combat or non combat) tnpt will be protected.
Once your in the sz you obviously can’t abandon your tnpt or it will get shot at. I think you’ll be able to move the tpt out and leave the protector behind if you choose to.
Upon exiting again it shouldn’t matter if they stay together, or split up into separate sz once your out of the subs waters (sz). Of course if you split up upon exiting and leave your trpt unprotected the enemy will be able to destroy it on his turn w/o even taking a shot (unless your ally can cover before then).
If all movement is actually simultaneous then you shouldn’t be able to leapfrog, moving one warship 2 spaces from the east “first” and then a transport one space south into the warship/enemy sub seazone, being protected and then moving it another space south. Also seazones are supposed to be big. The sub isn’t dead center, waiting for both ships to come in from north and west to meet right above it. If your transport comes in from another space it’s truly undefended for some fraction of that seazone, and while I realize this isn’t a hex board and movement is abstract, it doesn’t feel in keeping with the idea of an escort if you can come from different zones and be protected or that some movements can take priority at your discretion, which weakens the power of the sub.
So I think you either need to start with it or enter from the same side, and if it leaves you need to leave with it too, UNLESS you’re engaging the sub in combat (it can’t be in two places at once, obviously, firing on an undefended transport and fighting your escort fleet) or remaining in the seazone (essentially escorting to the border of the next seazone and turning back). And that eliminates any question of leapfrogging or movement order and you keep the idea of an escort undiluted.
There simply aren’t enough rules making subs ridiculously complex enough… Sorry guys, but there are 5 times the rules for a 6 IPC unit than for any other unit in the game. I’m all for simplifying sub rules while still giving Germany an advantage for buying them in the Atlantic. I like the convoy zone rules and the secret attack rules. Anything else may be beyond the scale of A&A global.
Your right Variable, there are a bunch of rules when it comes to subs, I was just thinking out loud. Subs are given a new role in this game w/convoy’s and the lone transport sneak attack. That should keep them fairly busy. Maybe in some future game, or as a house rule there role could be expanded further.
OK, we’re taking this thing in a different direction:
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships.
OK, we’re taking this thing in a different direction:
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships.
So, surface warships starting in the sea zone with a sub, and staying there, don’t prevent the attacks.
The attacks are not prevented, if a transport moves to a sea zone containing a surface warship, and then they both move into the sub’s sea zone.
The attacks are prevented, if a surface warship moves to a sea zone containing a transport, and then they both move into the sub’s sea zone?
The transport has to make its entire move with the warship, but the warship doesn’t have to make its entire move with the transport.
OK, we’re taking this thing in a different direction:
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships.So, surface warships starting in the sea zone with a sub, and staying there, don’t prevent the attacks.
The attacks are not prevented, if a transport moves to a sea zone containing a surface warship, and then they both move into the sub’s sea zone.
The attacks are prevented, if a surface warship moves to a sea zone containing a transport, and then they both move into the sub’s sea zone?
The transport has to make its entire move with the warship, but the warship doesn’t have to make its entire move with the transport.
That would be my interpretation as well. I like it. Nice, simple, concise. Great work guys!
That would be my interpretation as well. I like it. Nice, simple, concise. Great work guys!
I agree. Keeps it simple.
It allows a warship to catch up from a naval base. Only one condition seems wierd, and that would be a transport at a naval base cannot “catch up” to a warship, then move through the sub seazone. But, this is much simpler, clearer and doesn’t dilute submarine warfare.
The idea here is that in order to protect transports from sub attacks, they must have a dedicated escort. Since a moving fleet (in reality) would have no idea exactly where enemy subs are, the transports must be escorted for their entire move in order for the escort to qualify as “dedicated”.
Please continue to pick this apart. Your input has been valuable and appreciated.
Re: Submarine FAQ Question
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2010, 02:52:16 pm »
quote #1 from Krieghund:
Thanks for your feedback, guys. This is what we’re currently considering:
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions may subs attack moving transports?
A. If at any time during a transport’s movement it finds itself in a sea zone with a submarine belonging to a power with which it is at war and there is no friendly surface warship in the sea zone belonging to a power that is at war with the enemy power, it may be fired upon.
Re: Submarine FAQ Question
« Reply #56 on: January 31, 2010, 05:46:09 pm »
quote #2 from Krieghund:
OK, we’re taking this thing in a different direction:
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships.
These 2 post have entirely different meanings (or has that possibility).
The first one sounds like you can merge units into the sz that contains an enemy sub(s), and be protected.
The second (more recent) implies you must pair up at least one surface war ship w/transport(s) (could be already in same sz) prior to moving into a sz containing enemy sub(s). It also implies you must either stay in the sub(s) patrolled sz still paired (unless you attack sub) or exit into the same sz (still paired). So if your transports have two destinations you would need to escorts. In reality we are talking about up to 3 sz here.
If you engage the sub and lose the battle (your escort is killed, and he still has 1 sub remaining) would you also lose your transports automatically, or would the sub get one shot @ 2 against your transports?
@WILD:
If you engage the sub and lose the battle (your escort is killed, and he still has 1 sub remaining) would you also lose your transports automatically, or would the sub get one shot @ 2 against your transports?
The sneak shot occurs during movement not combat, so if you would have already prevented any future sub sneak against transport movement by moving a warship with the transport in compliance with whatever the rules end up being (I’m very satisfied with the current rule because that’s a true escort, not meeting up to become one in dangerous waters). Thus, if you then were battling the sub (instead of ignoring it) and your warship got torped, you have the option of retreating the transports (as you always do) and you would be able to do so without getting fired on again.
The idea here is that in order to protect transports from sub attacks, they must have a dedicated escort. Since a moving fleet (in reality) would have no idea exactly where enemy subs are, the transports must be escorted for their entire move in order for the escort to qualify as “dedicated”.
Please continue to pick this apart. Your input has been valuable and appreciated.
I’m fine with it, no matter how it ends up. But, why not require the surface warship to start with and stay with the transports?
As it is, the warship can move with the transport into the sub’s sea zone, leave the transport there, and then move on to make an attack in a different sea zone. Of course the transport is dead on the sub’s next turn, if other warships aren’t moved in to protect it.
I’m fine with it, no matter how it ends up. But, why not require the surface warship to start with and stay with the transports?
We wanted the transports to be escorted for their entire move, but leave the warships free to start or end in a different sea zone.
I’m fine with it, no matter how it ends up. But, why not require the surface warship to start with and stay with the transports?
We wanted the transports to be escorted for their entire move, but leave the warships free to start or end in a different sea zone.
And is it intentional that newly built transports at a naval base such as Japan would not be able to form convoys with forward based ships? In this manner they could only form a convoy with an existing ship in Japan’s seazone, or a newly built warship (or only move one space while a neighboring warship moved into and then one space along side the transport)
I realize yours is a simplified rule, but to me it seems the intent is that an escort ship needs to move through the enemy subs seazone by way of the same seazone boundaries in the same order as the transport, whether in and out or in and remain there. If it does that then it’s can be an escort. That provides an ability to wait for backup or take advantage of forward stationed ships with newly placed transports, but won’t allow any leapfrogging or splitting.
The idea here is that in order to protect transports from sub attacks, they must have a dedicated escort. Since a moving fleet (in reality) would have no idea exactly where enemy subs are, the transports must be escorted for their entire move in order for the escort to qualify as “dedicated”.
Please continue to pick this apart. Your input has been valuable and appreciated.
A simple rule is still confusing and harder to remember if it is counter-intuitive, and the player does not understand the reasoning behind it. It took me a while to realize that the reason an escort can’t just meet the trn in the sub’s sz because you don’t actually know where the subs are until you run into them. They’re like the Schrodinger cat, which is BOTH dead AND alive UNTIL you open the box and see it as one or the other. The enemy subs are in EVERY sz until you actually look and see if it is or isn’t in a particular sz. As simple as it is, the rule is near perfect by this reasoning (as far as I can see it). I think would be more fitting if the transport were safe as long as is never unaccompanied by a friendly surface warship throughout its move (even if its escort in it’s second and third sz is different from the one in its first), but maybe trying to allow for that would be more complicated than it’s worth.
And is it intentional that newly built transports at a naval base such as Japan would not be able to form convoys with forward based ships?
Yes. Having enemy subs wandering around in your supply lines is a bad thing.
I think would be more fitting if the transport were safe as long as is never unaccompanied by a friendly surface warship throughout its move (even if its escort in it’s second and third sz is different from the one in its first), but maybe trying to allow for that would be more complicated than it’s worth.
Indeed, it would.
We wanted the transports to be escorted for their entire move, but leave the warships free to start or end in a different sea zone.
Ok I’m trying to see the light here, please indulge (sz are just hypothetical and DD could be any surface war ship)
Scenario: You have a DD at a naval base sz#1 (gets 3 moves) There is a tpt in the sz#2 next to it (no NB gets 2 moves). You move the DD 1 space into sz #2 (paired up DD & tpt). You now move both DD & tpt 1 space into sz #3 that has 1 enemy sub.
Things you can do at this time to avoid the sub sneak attack on your tpt.
A) Keep both DD & tpt in sz#3, you could either keep them floating or offload for amp assault (if coastal).
B) Move both DD & tpt 1 more space to sz #4 (both units would be at their max movement)
C) Attack the sub in sz #3 w/DD (see below)
Things you can’t do:
D) Split up your 2 units by placing DD in sz #4, and tpt in sz #5.
E) Leave your tpt in sz #3, and move your DD to sz #4. (even if you bring in a replacement escort from a different sz at the same time)
F) Leave the DD in sz#3 (to patrol for subs) and move the tpt alone to sz#4 (not 100% on this one). From what I gathered the DD would have to have been there at the beginning of the turn, not moved there.
Things that need answers:
C) Attack the sub w/DD (from above):
a) Does it sub stall your tpt in the combat move if you attack w/DD, and both ships are stuck there regardless of the out come? (I would think this is right, at least its what happened in the past)
b) Does this nullify the sneak attack and allow your tpt(s) to move safely to the next sz alone? If it does work that way you could tie up 4-5 subs w/one DD allowing safe passage (doesn’t sound right)
**Also if you came in with a CR as the escort the sub could submerge in the attack before the battle. If it submerges what happens? Can the tpt continue on safely? (I would think not because all movement stops if there’s a battle attempt). I would think that if a sub submerges in combat it would not get pop shots in non combat, allowing tpts to move through alone safely in non combat, but I’m not sure anymore.
