Is there a succinct way to understand how a defending sub affects (or doesn’t affect) an amphibious attack? Do you need supporting warships? Are bombardments nullified? Does an escorting destroyer automatically engage the sub?
Succinct… you be the judge.
But enemy subs do not block sea movement.
So any unit, including transports, can ignore them during combat move phase. However, if you ambitious assault from a SZ with enemy sub(s) and the transport is unescorted, your opponent can defend with the sub, which would stop the assault.
If transport has at least 1 warship (aircraft do not count since without DD they can’t hit) with it, the attacker has the option of ignoring the sub, which then allows the assault to commence.
If the attacker wants to fight the sub, a naval battle occurs and if the attacker wins, the assault proceeds. Note: in this scenario, the enemy sub has the option to submerge, if no destroyers are present.
Here’s a cut and paste from the rule book:
Enemy submarines and/or transports don’t block any of your units’ movement, nor do they prevent loading or offloading in that sea zone (with one exception; see ‘Special Combat Movement: Transports‘). As the moving player, you have the option of attacking any enemy submarines and/or transports that share a sea zone with you. However, if a unit chooses to make such an attack, that unit must end its movement in that sea zone, and it must attack all such units present. In other words, you must either attack all enemy submarines and transports in the sea zone, or you must ignore all of them. You may not attack some enemy units and ignore others in the same sea zone. It is possible that some of your units stop to attack while others continue moving through the sea zone.
Special movement section
A transport can load units while in any friendly sea zone along its route, including the sea zone it started in. If a transport loads land units during the Combat Move phase, it must offload those units to attack a hostile territory as part of an amphibious assault during the Conduct Combat phase, or it must retreat during the sea combat step of the amphibious assault sequence while attempting to do so. A transport that is part of an amphibious assault must end its movement in a friendly sea zone (or one that could become friendly as result of sea combat) from which it can conduct the assault. However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.
Surfer is correct. That’s how TripleA works too.
@surfer said in Amphibious attacks and defending subs:
However, if you ambitious assault from a SZ with enemy sub(s) and the transport is unescorted, your opponent can defend with the sub, which would stop the assault.
This scenario is not possible, as you proved by the rules you quoted. Also a transport may not attack in a sea battle without being accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value.
Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Amphibious attacks and defending subs:
Surfer is correct. That’s how TripleA works too.
Please never argue with TripleA in this forum category, as you can’t always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start TripleA … and better check what TripleA has done.
I know, but I don’t remember seeing that as something that TripleA can’t do in the notes.
There are a lot of rules issues related to the TripleA-engine, that are independent from the specific games/maps.
@surfer thank you! Just the nuance to separate movement and combat was helpful enough for my brain to catch on and keep this straight now. Much appreciated. Still convoluted but I can follow and retain the rule now.
I guess that’s true. I’ll keep this in mind.
You’re welcome (I know it wasn’t addressed to me, but I’m saying it anyway)!
@Panther yes, that is what i meant.
I should have said, “if you were to attempt an amphibious assault…it would not be possible because…”
@Polishpowerhouse you’re welcome. Glad it helped
A aequitas-et-veritas referenced this topic on
