Thanks for the clear confimation/explanation Krieg and Maxo!
It belongs to Germany. Control of AA guns always transfers with control of the territory, except in one situation.
Say Germany has an AA gun in France, and the USSR captures Germany and the UK captures France. If Italy captures France from the UK, it gets to keep it and the AA gun, since Germany’s capital is held by the enemy. If Italy then liberates Germany, Germany gets France back, but Italy gets to keep the AA gun there. This is the only time that a territory can change hands without any AA guns in it changing hands along with it.
In the interest of clarity, as your example doesn’t cover my query, and I think the following example is a better illustration….let’s say Germany liberates Libya, and there is an aa gun there. Does control of the aa go to Germany (the liberator) or Italy (the new territory owner)?
Since my exception example doesn’t cover your situation, the general rules applies. Control of the AA transfers with control of the territory. It goes to Italy.
It belongs to Germany. Control of AA guns always transfers with control of the territory, except in one situation.
Say Germany has an AA gun in France, and the USSR captures Germany and the UK captures France. If Italy captures France from the UK, it gets to keep it and the AA gun, since Germany’s capital is held by the enemy. If Italy then liberates Germany, Germany gets France back, but Italy gets to keep the AA gun there. This is the only time that a territory can change hands without any AA guns in it changing hands along with it.
In the interest of clarity, as your example doesn’t cover my query, and I think the following example is a better illustration….let’s say Germany liberates Libya, and there is an aa gun there. Does control of the aa go to Germany (the liberator) or Italy (the new territory owner)?
Italy, unless Rome is in Allied hands, in which case it would be Germany.
Dear Krieg ;)
Last game saw a lively discussion concerning a combat move where I, as UK, attacked the German fleet. I attacked with only bombers and fighters, Germany had 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 cruiser and 4 subs. 2 transports as well.
My question: Can Germany use his subs as casualties when I attack with only air units?
TB
Dear Krieg ;)
Last game saw a lively discussion concerning a combat move where I, as UK, attacked the German fleet. I attacked with only bombers and fighters, Germany had 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 cruiser and 4 subs. 2 transports as well.
My question: Can Germany use his subs as casualties when I attack with only air units?
TB
No
Dear Krieg ;)
Last game saw a lively discussion concerning a combat move where I, as UK, attacked the German fleet. I attacked with only bombers and fighters, Germany had 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 cruiser and 4 subs. 2 transports as well.
My question: Can Germany use his subs as casualties when I attack with only air units?
TBNo
Planes can only attack subs if accompanied by a DD. No DD, no aircraft / sub interaction.
Battlingmaxo and axis_roll are correct.
@Captain:
I too have a transport question. Japan has been conquered ( don’t ask, don’t ask :-( ). On the mainland adjacent to Japan is a Japanese tank. Small US force in the SZ surrounding Japan. I now need to come back with my Japanese fleet and retake Japan. I want to bring a transport with one infantry to do an amphibious attack on Japan to try and liberate it. Can my Japanse transport bridge the Japanese tank to Japan along with the one infantry it brought into the sea zone if the sea battle is won by Japan, as long as I declare that is my intent? Or can the tank not bridge because the sz was hostile at the time the battle was declared?
Regards,
Captain Crunch
Krieg’s answer -
The tank can’t be loaded, as the sea zone is hostile during the Combat Movement phase.
Is it any different if the transport is not moving into the hostile sea zone?
Example - British fleet is in Z7 with lots of transports, and lots of ground units in the UK. If Germany has an IC on France and builds one destroyer right before UK goes, does that make it impossible for the UK to load units from GBr from Z7? Or can a defending power build 1 DD in Z5 to prevent all loading of ground units by enemy transports that are in Z5?? If so, this seems like a lame rule, as the new DD would be built hundreds of miles from the loadings site, where there could be a massive force of warships. There’s no way a single destroyer unit should be able to disrupt so much. But I guess a single destroyer can block a massive fleet, too, so whatever. What’s the rule on this, Krieghund?
Is it any different if the transport is not moving into the hostile sea zone?
Example - British fleet is in Z7 with lots of transports, and lots of ground units in the UK. If Germany has an IC on France and builds one destroyer right before UK goes, does that make it impossible for the UK to load units from GBr from Z7?
Yes, the destroyer would prevent transports from loading in its sea zone. However, nothing would prevent the UK transports from moving to either sea zone 6 or sea zone 8 (assuming they’re friendly), loading there, and then returning to sea zone 7 to attack.
Or can a defending power build 1 DD in Z5 to prevent all loading of ground units by enemy transports that are in Z5??
Yes.
If so, this seems like a lame rule, as the new DD would be built hundreds of miles from the loadings site, where there could be a massive force of warships. There’s no way a single destroyer unit should be able to disrupt so much. But I guess a single destroyer can block a massive fleet, too, so whatever.
Yes, it’s the same principle.
Thanks Krieghund! As always, very timely!
Krieg, I have a large fleet in z5 with germany and russia built a destroyer in 5 just before my german turn with the intent of blocking any loading of transports in z5 by germany. if indeed this is the rule that’s fine, but i think it’s higly unrealistic and lame that russia building a single destroyer in a zone dominated by german fleet could block all loading from nwe, germany, poland, norway and finland. i guess a rule’s a rule, but geez is that lame.
i understand it wouldn’t block me from moving to z6 and picking up units from france, gbr, nwy or nwe yet it blocks me from loading from germany, poland, bst, finland and nwy from z5. rationale?
i understand it wouldn’t block me from moving to z6 and picking up units from france, gbr, nwy or nwe yet it blocks me from loading from germany, poland, bst, finland and nwy from z5. rationale?
The rationale is that you can not load your transports in a contested sea zone.
It’s not like Russia just * wished * this to be so. She had to spend $8 AND have control of Karelia (assuming no new IC’s were built) as well as ensure that there was at least one unit of capacity to build there (discussing if Karelia had damage).
Heh. Axis_roll beat me to it.
that’s fine, i’m just saying it doesn’t seem realistic for one destroyer to be able to be built in karelia and be able to disrupt all german transporting in z5 when the germans had a huge fleet there prior to the build. i could see it making sense if the germans were moving INTO z5 when there’s a russian destroyer already in the waters but to just buy a destroyer and place it, stopping all german transporting in the combat phase is a silly technicality IMO
but to just buy a destroyer and place it, stopping all german transporting in the combat phase is a silly technicality IMO
I agree.
And I suppose it works both ways - when Germany is under seige she could stop all UK transporting (and US if UK doesn’t sink the destroyer) from Finland, Karelia, and Baltic States by simply buying a destroyer. It not only stops all transport loading everywhere in the zone (in combat movement phase anyway), but all bombardment against any territory in the zone! Crazy!!
It wouldn’t be such a problem if Z5 didn’t border SEVEN territories.
yes that’s my point, there are a couple of sea zones in which the rule is highly problematic, namely z34 and z5 with z5 being by far the worst
It’s not like Russia just * wished * this to be so. She had to spend $8 AND have control of Karelia (assuming no new IC’s were built) as well as ensure that there was at least one unit of capacity to build there (discussing if Karelia had damage).
Excellent point, it’s rare that Russia finds herself in that position, 8 IPC is a lot for russia to spend on a unit that will be dead on Germany’s next turn. But since I’m Russia in this case, I kinda like it. :lol: :lol:
but to just buy a destroyer and place it, stopping all german transporting in the combat phase is a silly technicality IMO
I agree.
And I suppose it works both ways - when Germany is under seige she could stop all UK transporting (and US if UK doesn’t sink the destroyer) from Finland, Karelia, and Baltic States by simply buying a destroyer. It not only stops all transport loading everywhere in the zone (in combat movement phase anyway), but all bombardment against any territory in the zone! Crazy!!
It wouldn’t be such a problem if Z5 didn’t border SEVEN territories.
I see that with Germany all the time, make it a Red destroyer and everyone sits up and takes notice. :lol: :lol:
@Emperor:
I see that with Germany all the time, make it a Red destroyer and everyone sits up and takes notice. :lol: :lol:
That’s interesting, because I never have. I mean, only to stop bombardment, not to prevent loadings.
I see on page 31 of the rulebook under transports that it’s very clear and unambiguous, though, that “A transport can load cargo in friendly sea zones before, during, and after it moves”.
A single enemy destroyer in the same zone prevents all combat movement loading of units, so it is quite a tactic. I will be adding it to my reportoire, that’s for sure. In fact, it could come in handy in our team tournament game that’s in its 20th round, EM :lol:
