Naval retreat, unload troops?

That is correct. If you retreat transports from combat you cannot unload those troops.

BTW it is found under the Transport characteristics section of the rulebook.

Whenever a transport offloads, it can’t move again that turn. If a transport retreats, it can’t offload that turn.

The rule should be you can retreat back on transports, but all units are converted to infantry…meaning tanks, etc get dumped on the beaches ala Dunkirk

@Imperious-Leader

that makes no sense. The crews never unloaded, as the contingent battle never took place.

@taamvan The Soldiers and equipment never landed? Yes they did. The rule in a realistic setting would include a retreat, but equipment gets left behind. Do you now understand?

@Imperious-Leader No. There are no retreats from amphibs, only planned but failed amphibs, so your attempt at “realism” would model them throwing their heavy equipment overboard. Unless you’re saying that you want to HR that you CAN retreat from amphibs, which has never been an AxA thing.

I KNOW THAT. I was saying what the rule SHOULD BE, not what it is.

I agree with Imperious Leader on this.

The existing rule is simpler, but pretty much completely illogical. Loaded transports should be able to retreat and unload into a friendly territory (if one is available).

Maybe the next version of Global will include this.

Marsh

It is not illogical; it is following the rules. Transports cannot act both in the combat phase and the non-combat phase. If a transport moved to participate in combat for an amphibious assault, the naval attack failed, and the transport retreated it has now completed its Turn, aka action, during the combat phase. Thus it may no longer act during the non-combat phase to unload units. ONLY air units have the ability to perform an action in both the combat phase and non-combat phase. ALL other units must act in only one or the other.

Remember it is NOT the ground units that are the issue, it is the transport. Once the transport has gone it is irrelevant if the ground troops have done anything. It is the same reason if you have already loaded units on a transport and one of those units unloads during combat that the second unit cannot unload during non-combat; that transport already went during combat.

Dude, we know the rule. We’re just saying it should be different.

@Marshmallow-of-War said in Naval retreat, unload troops?:

Dude, we know the rule. We’re just saying it should be different.

LOL - You know sometimes it is hard to tell what people are trying to say. :)

@AndrewAAGamer Right from this sentence, its impossible to grasp the intent…

" I was saying what the rule SHOULD BE, not what it is." I will try to be more clear to some of you going forward.:face_with_rolling_eyes:

@Imperious-Leader said in Naval retreat, unload troops?:

@AndrewAAGamer Right from this sentence, its impossible to grasp the intent…

" I was saying what the rule SHOULD BE, not what it is." I will try to be more clear to some of you going forward.:face_with_rolling_eyes:

ROFL - I was talking about Marshmallow’s comments not yours. Too Funny!!!

Hey folks, just remember that we ALL misunderstand things sometimes. :) It’s part of being human.

Marsh

Now I forgot. What was the question again ? lol :blush:

@Imperious-Leader @AndrewAAGamer @Marshmallow-of-War

I suppose the possibility of unloading in friendly territory is gamey and realistic, but that’s not what IL said. He said that the units should be converted into infantry, which is illogical and unrealistic. Tank drivers and mechanics and artillerymen are not infantry, and the tanks in our bizarre, overstretched analogy, never landed.

Furthermore, the rule as-is creates a risk in contingent battles, forcing the offender to bring the correct amount of offense sometimes without anticipating any sea battle (example; 1 transport taking an undefended Northern Italy, 2 planes at Southern Italy sea base, planes accompany the transport to ward off a scramble.)

So I’d concede that it makes sense that the units could abandon the attack and find a friendly port and unload; it makes no sense that they’d be converted into another unit, and the rule as-is creates risk-reward that forces the attacker to shift offensive units away from odds battles in order to ensure that the SZs are cleared and the amphib proceeds.

“He said that the units should be converted into infantry, which is illogical and unrealistic.”

I said there is essentially is some salvageable asset of entire armies, which the basic unit is an infantry. At Dunkirk the rescued solders left their tanks, artillery, etc on the roads leading to the beaches. Those 300,000 men simply were used as home guard while England built new Tanks and other equipment. They were not enlisted in the military as Fish and Chip cooks, Bus Drivers, and Uber Drivers. They were used in whatever capacity England felt would serve, pending invasion. Instead of inventing a new unit called “Fish and Chip unit”, it’s better to incorporate them realistically as INFANTRY units. This is the most realistic solution possible. To force every soldier to fight to the last man like Custer’s 7th Cavalry when the transports have literally just landed them. Look at Gallipoli, look at the Kerch Peninsula 1942, etc. Men in those times escaped and the shear number of trained soldiers would have formed new units…and did. Please read something.