Thanks guys. I thought this was the case, but could not easily find what you quoted in the rule book so I wanted to make sure. Sometimes I do get it wrong. (But not often. :wink:)
Naval retreat, unload troops?
-
@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 Taamvan is correct - the troops never landed because I had to retreat from my naval battle (which had to successfully conclude before the amphibious assault could take place) due to bad dice rolls.
-
@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.
-
Actually you know what? They all became part of UK’s largest Fish and Chip Franchise and situated on every street corner of London with the newspaper wrapped Fish for 1 pound, 6 pence. 338,000 were never used in the British Army again and were totally unemployable. The Miracle of Dunkirk was about saving the Cod and Chips for future generations. Thanks for the History lesson!
-
Interesting. All make good points.
AA Andrew has it right based on rule, but if you can amph. land troops from a transport after naval battle then why is it if you retreat your transport to another sea zone why can’t you land ground units there. Its like you pay a penalty if you lose naval battle.IL has a point to but is it based on time frame for his rule ? House rule. You amph. 1 tank and 3 Inf.
You are going to lose the ground battle and you want to retreat back to transports.
If you want to retreat with 1 tank and 1 Inf. Do you lose tank based on it can’t drive back on transport ? I think your saying the guys that drive the tanks are what you are converting to inf. For each tank retreating = 1 Inf (drivers/crews). -
Imperious much? Know you better than that.
Rather than changing into anything, they should just risk being destroyed as military units. The units at Dieppe landed, and were annihilated. They were destroyed as military units, even if some individuals survived. The units at Dunkirk weren’t part of an amphibious invasion at all, they were “noncommed” out before/during battle, so in that way AxA is less real than real life too (they left the heavy equipment behind). An even bigger extension of your concept then would be having units be able to use nearby transports to retreat from land battles. Realistic and gamey, probably so, but the defender can’t retreat in AxA.
We can probably, as a group, find another serious of overstretched nerdy analogies for what happens but if you’re proposing a rule or outcome it has to be consistent and make sense, or its not a good rule
-
Well to benefit the defender, the defending artillery should be able to get a preemptive fire in the opening round only, right after SB’s and only infantry can participate as attackers for the first round.
1> SB, remove defenders
2>Defending Artillery fire, remove attackers
3> Attacking Infantry and Air can attack only-Defending units fire-Both sides remove loses
4>Combat continues as normal
5>Also some areas should be off limits to invasion due to tides and inhospitable terrain, etc.Again this is a level of realism, but may be unrealistic for some admittedly.
-
Well I appreciate the attempt to make it into a more complex and nuanced game mechanic, but I’ll just fall back on my old argument that AxA is goldilocks as it is and that adding more complexity and nuance to a game with this scale takes it to the “unplayable long and riddled with exceptions and details” level.
Some of the sub- games (Guadalcanal, D-Day, WW1) do have mechanics sort of like what you propose. TONS of other games with overwatch and highly detailed combat rounds definitely do. But injecting those into the core AxA games risks upsetting the balance of “not-too-complex or conditional” and “just complex enough to be fully grasped by most players”
-
Well the ideas i speak of are not new. AARHE was created back in 2004-5 and had almost verbatim these ideas and the document was created by about 50 people on this site. It eventually won something runner up to “internet wargame of the year” Don’t really care about that, but it was play-tested to death based on 2004 Revised and it works. Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition is the full name. Its on this site somewhere. I don’t believe for a second that AA is some totally abstract game. G40 has alot of realism built into it. Its alot more complicated than “Guadalcanal”
Suggested Topics
