Submarine withdrawal question

[TinCanoftheSea]

@krieghund Thanks, it’s one of those rules that probably won’t ever be needed but if it does, it’s good to know.

[thrasher1]

@tincanofthesea

I am pretty sure Larry Harris once said that about 80 % of the questions sent (pre-email, pre-internet) to Hasbro were about subs…

Well, I am still learning new stuff (into Axis and Allies since the mid-1990s). So thanks for this question.

To be honest I cannot recall if this situation once happened in a game I played.
But I can imagine this can be a handy tactic to ‘spread’ your subs…

Wow… again: thanks. I like to keep learning about Axis and Allies Classic’s great (and sometimes unclear though) rules! Keep playing A&A Classic!

[thrasher1]

I thought maybe, maybe this was mentioned in the great Peter Goudswaard’s Axis and Allies FAQ but unfortunately it was not.

Version 1.4 (the last one released): https://groups.google.com/g/rec.answers/c/dALhmZ-8gec

Section 2: Situations not covered clearly in the rules.

What defines a legal sea zone for withdrawing subs?

For attacking subs, this is more clear. Attacking subs must
withdraw to an adjacent sea zone from which any attacking
naval vessels came (Source: Manual, page 17, under “Where:”).
For defending subs, this is more complex. Defending subs must
withdraw to any friendly or unoccupied adjacent sea zone (Source: Manual, page 17, under “Where:”. But, what is unoccupied?

A sea zone becomes unoccupied when the attacker vacates it.
Source: Communication with Milton Bradley (dated July 27, 1995).

So, during the combat phase of a turn, a defending sub can withdraw into a sea zone that the enemy had left during that same turn’s combat movement phase. Thus, it does not matter if the attacking units that left the zone might or might not retreat.

Note: I personally disagree with this statement from MB, as it violates a principal that I have noted the spirit of throughout the rules. The principal is that “the state of the board at the beginning of the present turn defines what is legal.” This idea applies to legal landing spaces and use of canals, even to the point that, for example, if during the first turn Egypt falls to Germany and then the UK sub south of Turkey is attacked and missed, it can go through the canal even though Germany has already captured Egypt. However, I recognize MB as the experts and thus will accept it, pending further questions – Dewey Barich.

EDIT: Tried to clean up the text formatting a bit…

[Krieghund]

@thrasher1 said in Submarine withdrawal question:

The principal is that “the state of the board at the beginning of the present turn defines what is legal.”

This is not a universal principle. For example, in noncombat movement air units may not land in territories that were not friendly at the beginning of the turn, but land and sea units are free to move into or through spaces that were hostile at the beginning of the turn but no longer are.

[thrasher1]

@krieghund I still think this is a ‘general’ principal to keep in mind. It does not apply to all instances as you clearly show.

Issues like this (where you can retreat to / move to) reminded me of a rule me and my friends had overlooked for quite some time:

“You may ‘non-combat move’ units into an area you just conquered that turn.”

[Cernel]

Until now, I thought that playing Classic II Edition without additional optional rules (namely, the placement in hostile sea zone rule) meant that it was impossible for enemy units ever to share the same zone across turns (which, in Classic, I have thus far believed it could possibly happen only via placing in hostile sea zones or via submerging submarines).

Am I now understanding correctly, instead, that, even in Classic II Edition without optional rules, you can have enemy units sharing the same zone across turns by retreating one or more defending submarines to a currently empty zone whence one or more offending sea units came and thereafter retreating one or more offending units to the same zone?

I have the feeling that this is colliding with the simultaneous actions principle. I’ll explain why.

My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceeding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended. Right?

Now, let’s assume we have two sea battles, one in zone A and the other one in zone B. In both cases, all offending units each of which is in either battle moved 1 space only and started their turn in zone C (so they all came from zone C).

In the battle in zone A what happens is that one or more defending submarines withdraw to zone C and all offending units are killed.

In the battle in zone B what happens is that one or more offending submarines withdraw to zone C and all defending units are killed.

Now my understanding is that what I described happening in the battles can actually happen only if I resolve first the battle in zone A because, if I resolve first the battle in zone B, then the defending submarines in zone A will be unable to withdraw to C.

Isn’t this creating an extraneus case in which battles are rendered substantially non-simultaneous? Is it acceptable that what happens in a battle changes what can happen in an other battle on the same turn beside the case of sea-battling before offloading? Is this actually fine? Has Larry Harris ever been aware of this possibility?

[The_Good_Captain]

Where do you see that all combats are simultaneous? I don’t have a word document of the manual so can’t search by keyword, but I’m not seeing it for combat…

I feel like what happens in the combat movement phase is simultaneous but that individual battles are sequential. So you can have a blitzing tank capture an AA gun and still have that AA gun shoot at an enemy bomber in the combat movement phase as it flies over.

But once you get to the combat phase, the combats are sequential - attackers choice of order. I feel strongly that the sub withdrawal rule is one of the more fun and nuanced rules for exactly the reason you posted. They can be slippery as hell.

And for the record - attacking units can retreat to any space from which an attacking unit came. One potential way around the very rare headache situation you illustrated is to have a naval or air unit approach the battle from a 2nd or 3rd sea zone thereby allowing it as an additional potential zone of retreat.

[Cernel]

@the_good_captain said in Submarine withdrawal question:

Where do you see that all combats are simultaneous? I don’t have a word document of the manual so can’t search by keyword, but I’m not seeing it for combat…

I feel like what happens in the combat movement phase is simultaneous but that individual battles are sequential. So you can have a blitzing tank capture an AA gun and still have that AA gun shoot at an enemy bomber in the combat movement phase as it flies over.

But once you get to the combat phase, the combats are sequential - attackers choice of order. I feel strongly that the sub withdrawal rule is one of the more fun and nuanced rules for exactly the reason you posted. They can be slippery as hell.

And for the record - attacking units can retreat to any space from which an attacking unit came. One potential way around the very rare headache situation you illustrated is to have a naval or air unit approach the battle from a 2nd or 3rd sea zone thereby allowing it as an additional potential zone of retreat.

It can be deduced in a series of passages.

First of all, we can demonstrate that all actual combat is instantaneous.

Since there is not a maximum to the number of combat rounds each battle may last (that is you can have a battle lasting for near-to-infinite combat rounds), this necessarily implies that each combat round is timeless. In turn, every combat round taking no time implies that the whole battle, beside retreating actions, takes no time, as well.

Since, on the other hand, units cannot move of infinite spaces, it is clear that movement is not timeless: every unit takes some unspecified yet positive time to move from a zone to an other one.

Therefore, being retreat a form of movement and the battle ending as soon as all remaining units of one side retreat, the instantaneous series of combat rounds of the next battle can only happen when the retreating units of the previous battle are starting their movement, so they are still in the formerly embattled zone, at that point.

Similarly, for submarines that have withdrawn during a combat round of a battle that lasts for one or more subsequent combat rounds, since all combat rounds are instantaneous but movement is not, all the following combat rounds happen when the units have just started their withdrawing movement (and have actually not moved at all).

Therefore, in the example I previously made, regarding the case in which I firstly resolve battle B and secondly resolved battle A, what I picture is happening is that, in the instant in which the defending submarines in battle A retreat to zone C, the offending submarines which I previously retreated to zone C are just starting their movement, so they are still in zone B.

Hence, I believe that the only way to make dynamically sense is allowing defending submarines to retreat to any sea zone which was empty of enemy units at the start of the Conduct Combat phase (Let’s call the phase as such for clarity, even though in Classic it is just called as “Combat”.).

Unfortunately, the rules, instead, appear to say that I have to check the state of the board at the moment I take the decision to withdraw, instead of checking the state of the board at the start of the Conduct Combat phase, and this is where I see an inconsistency with the implied universe otherwise constructed by the set of rules.

To be clear, if it were me, an errata ought to be released stating something like:

Change the sentence “defending submarines must withdraw to ANY ONE adjacent friendly or unoccupied sea zone” at page 17 to “defending submarines must withdraw to ANY ONE adjacent sea zone which was friendly or unoccupied at the start of the phase”.

As a side note, I don’t like that there is such a marginal exception potentially causing enemy units to share the same zone across turns (which I believe can otherwise never happen in the II Edition of Classic when not using the optional “Placing Your Naval Units in Enemy-Occupied Sea Zones” rule, so, if updating the rules, I would rather just forbid every defending submarine to retreat to any zone which either was or may be eligible for retreating offensive units at any point during the phase, or really whatever makes sure not to have enemy units sharing a same sea zone at the end of the turn, but this is just my preference.

Obviously, not much left to do here but waiting for @Krieghund.

[Krieghund]

@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

Am I now understanding correctly, instead, that, even in Classic II Edition without optional rules, you can have enemy units sharing the same zone across turns by retreating one or more defending submarines to a currently empty zone whence one or more offending sea units came and thereafter retreating one or more offending units to the same zone?

No. From the FAQ:

Q. When subs withdraw from combat, where can they go?
A. If the subs were attacking, they can withdraw to any adjacent sea zone that naval units came from when launching this attack.

If the subs are defending, the rules state they can withdraw to any friendly or unoccupied adjacent sea zone. Ultimately, both of these amount to the same thing; any sea zone that does not contain enemy naval vessels or aircraft at the time the subs withdraw. That last bit is very important because it means defending subs can withdraw into sea zones that the attacking forces came from, thus cutting off the attacker’s avenue of retreat. As long as there are no enemy units currently in a sea zone, it’s a legal withdrawal path for defending subs. (Units on an island don’t matter; they’re in a land territory, not in the sea zone).

I have the feeling that this is colliding with the simultaneous actions principle. I’ll explain why.

My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceeding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended. Right?

This isn’t the only instance on the results of one battle affecting another. The best example is both attacking and performing an SBR against the same territory, just in case the territory is not captured.

[Cernel]

@krieghund said in Submarine withdrawal question:

@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

Am I now understanding correctly, instead, that, even in Classic II Edition without optional rules, you can have enemy units sharing the same zone across turns by retreating one or more defending submarines to a currently empty zone whence one or more offending sea units came and thereafter retreating one or more offending units to the same zone?

No. From the FAQ:

Q. When subs withdraw from combat, where can they go?
A. If the subs were attacking, they can withdraw to any adjacent sea zone that naval units came from when launching this attack.

If the subs are defending, the rules state they can withdraw to any friendly or unoccupied adjacent sea zone. Ultimately, both of these amount to the same thing; any sea zone that does not contain enemy naval vessels or aircraft at the time the subs withdraw. That last bit is very important because it means defending subs can withdraw into sea zones that the attacking forces came from, thus cutting off the attacker’s avenue of retreat. As long as there are no enemy units currently in a sea zone, it’s a legal withdrawal path for defending subs. (Units on an island don’t matter; they’re in a land territory, not in the sea zone).

I’m not surprised of this clarification, as I’ve always been under the impression that the standard Classic II Edition rules-set was meant to assure enemy units would never share the same zone at the end of any turn. Correct?

I see now that, on page 19, it says that “attacking subs retreat first and withdraw BACK to ONE adjacent friendly sea zone from which they or any accompanying attacking naval units came”, whereas on page 17 it says “attacking submarines must withdraw BACK to ONE adjacent sea zone from which they or any accompanying attacking naval units moved into combat”. Hence, it is practically page 17 that is missing to specify that the sea zone has to be friendly (which cannot be considered a problem with the rule-book since that section references page 19 for details).

Nit-picking question: is a sea zone with no units in it a friendly sea zone? The fact that, in other passages, the rules state “friendly or unoccupied” makes me think that a “friendly” sea zone is only a sea zone with one or more own or allied units in it, whereas an “unoccupied” sea zone is only a sea zone with no units in it. Otherwise, if “friendly” means having no enemy units in it, then saying “friendly or unoccupied” is exactly the same as saying just “friendly” (as all “unoccupied” zones would be “friendly”).

I have the feeling that this is colliding with the simultaneous actions principle. I’ll explain why.

My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceeding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended. Right?

This isn’t the only instance on the results of one battle affecting another. The best example is both attacking and performing an SBR against the same territory, just in case the territory is not captured.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that being able to resolve the regular battle first and then conduct SBR only in case the territory was not overtaken is merely another oversight in these old rules, especially considering that the most recent ones force making the SBR first, so the two battles never actually influence each other? Is it correct to say that in the most recent rules-sets two battles never influence what may be done in each other beside the case of naval battles before sea-borne assaults?

[Krieghund]

@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

I’m not surprised of this clarification, as I’ve always been under the impression that the standard Classic II Edition rules-set was meant to assure enemy units would never share the same zone at the end of any turn. Correct?

Yes.

Nit-picking question: is a sea zone with no units in it a friendly sea zone? The fact that, in other passages, the rules state “friendly or unoccupied” makes me think that a “friendly” sea zone is only a sea zone with one or more own or allied units in it, whereas an “unoccupied” sea zone is only a sea zone with no units in it. Otherwise, if “friendly” means having no enemy units in it, then saying “friendly or unoccupied” is exactly the same as saying just “friendly” (as all “unoccupied” zones would be “friendly”).

“Friendly” is defined on page 12 of the Rulebook as “controlled or occupied by you or a member of your alliance.” This doesn’t include unoccupied sea zones.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that being able to resolve the regular battle first and then conduct SBR only in case the territory was not overtaken is merely another oversight in these old rules, especially considering that the most recent ones force making the SBR first, so the two battles never actually influence each other?

Actually, per the 1991 Rules Clarifications, the SBR must be resolved first.

Is it correct to say that in the most recent rules-sets two battles never influence what may be done in each other beside the case of naval battles before sea-borne assaults?

The case of both attack and SBR against the same territory remains.

[thrasher1]

@krieghund and others: thanks for clarifying this. Issues likes this do surface (no pun intended) so now and then and I must say I pretty much like them. Well, find them very interesting.

A more general remark. To me it always seemed a bit like:

• Attacking subs should not use retreating as a way to actually move further. So: move back to a seazone where at least one of your units came from. (That can be from the ‘opposite’ directions indeed).

• Defending subs: They can use this oppurtunity (retreating) to sneak away. Just giving them a ‘bonus’ / extra oppurtunity for a potenial good move.

Just my idea…

[Cernel]

@thrasher1 said in Submarine withdrawal question:

• Attacking subs should not use retreating as a way to actually move further. So: move back to a seazone where at least one of your units came from. (That can be from the ‘opposite’ directions indeed).

They certainly do that every time an attacking submarine withdraw to a zone it didn’t come from. Consider, for example, having four sea zones adiacent only to the nearby ones in the sequente A, B, C and D. If you have an enemy battleship in C and move a submarine from A to C through B and an other submarine from D to C and all attacking submarines survive and withdraw to D, your submarine which started the turn in A is now in D, which is a zone 3 movements away from A.

[thrasher1]

@cernel Yeah, that option indeed is possible yes.

A -> B -> C <- D

Combat in C

A . B . C -> D

Now the sub from seazone A is in seazone D.

[Cernel]

@krieghund said in Submarine withdrawal question:

@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

Nit-picking question: is a sea zone with no units in it a friendly sea zone? The fact that, in other passages, the rules state “friendly or unoccupied” makes me think that a “friendly” sea zone is only a sea zone with one or more own or allied units in it, whereas an “unoccupied” sea zone is only a sea zone with no units in it. Otherwise, if “friendly” means having no enemy units in it, then saying “friendly or unoccupied” is exactly the same as saying just “friendly” (as all “unoccupied” zones would be “friendly”).

“Friendly” is defined on page 12 of the Rulebook as “controlled or occupied by you or a member of your alliance.” This doesn’t include unoccupied sea zones.

Well then, I guess the rule that, on page 19 of the rule-book, says that “attacking subs retreat first and withdraw BACK to ONE adjacent friendly sea zone from which they or any accompanying attacking naval units came”, as well as the clarification in the http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/ClassicSuppDoc.pdf, stating that “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” means that attacking submarines can only withdraw to sea zones currently occupied by one or more units each of which is controlled by the same player controlling the submarine or by a member of his/her alliance (because both passages only say “friendly”, not “friendly or unoccupied”).
So, is it correct (I believe it should not.) to state that, if I move a submarine of one space into combat from zone A to zone B, and, while resolving the battle in B, zone A is unoccupied (so not friendly), then I cannot withdraw the submarine to zone A, whereas I could if there would be one or more own or allied units in the zone? I’m fairly certain this has to be an oversight, and, in both aforementioned passages, the writer or the writers intended to write “friendly or unoccupied” and mistakenly only wrote “friendly”. That is why I was wondering if “friendly” just meant “non-hostile” so comprising “unoccupied” sea zones too, even though that doesn’t really make sense, also literally (hard to see something being friendly if there is nothing friendly there).
However, a subsequent sentence states that “if several defending subs withdraw on the same round, they must also withdraw to the same sea zone–BACK to one adjacent friendly or unoccupied sea zone”. Thus, here, the zone can also be unoccupied, but this covers only the case in which “several” (whatever that means) submarines are withdrawing (so the clarification certainly cannot apply to the case in which I withdraw only one submarine).
Moreover, the firstly aforementioned passage of the “Classic Support Document” appears to say that attacking submarines cannot even regularly retreat when they would be retreating with other units. Indeed, after having said that “Subs may retreat as above, or they could “withdraw,””, the document, on the same section, goes on stating that (as I’ve already quoted) “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came”.
These two sentences appear to be in partial direct contradiction of one an other: the first sentence is telling me that I can choose either to retreat my submarine as normal or to withdraw them under their special rules, whereas the second sentence is telling me that, if I choose to “retreat” my submarines with other naval units, I must instead “withdraw” them, assumingly under their special withdrawing rules. So, literally, this means that I can normally retreat submarines only if all remaining naval units attacking in the battle are submarines, otherwise submarines must specially withdraw if they want to leave the battle together with non-submarine units.
Is the sentence “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” meaning the same as saying “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must use its special withdraw ability” or not?
At this point, all this being said, if we would take it all literally, beside the fact that (not to be oblivious to the obvious) we would understand “several” as certainly meaning “two or more” (even though “several” is a rather vague word, usually actually supposed to be an unspecified, yet at least greater than two, number), what I feel forced to understand is all the following, on any round of combat in which one or more defending units remain:

• If I have one or more attacking submarines and no other attacking naval units, I can (referring to the attacking units only)
  normally retreat all submarines to one friendly or unoccupied zone
  or specially withdraw one submarine to one friendly sea zone
  or specially withdraw two or more (“several”) submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
  or both specially withdraw one submarine to one friendly sea zone and retreat all other submarines to the same zone or to an other friendly zone or to an unoccupied one
  or both specially withdraw two or more (“several”) submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other submarines to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied zone.
• If I have one or more attacking submarines and one or more other attacking naval units, I cannot normally retreat all naval units together (because “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first”), but I can (referring to the attacking units only)
  specially withdraw one submarine to one friendly sea zone
  or specially withdraw two or more (“several”) submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
  or, if only one attacking submarine remains, both specially withdraw the submarine to one friendly sea zone and retreat all other units to the same zone or to an other friendly zone or to an unoccupied one
  or, if two or more attacking submarines remain, both specially withdraw all submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other units to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied zone.

Obviously, I realize that what I just described makes hardly any sense (It is particularly weird that a lone withdrawing submarine cannot go into unoccupied zones while several ones together can.), but I also believe that is what the rules, and especially the clarifications, are actually literally saying.
On the other hand, if I decide to disregard both the English meaning and the rule-book definition of “friendly”, going instead ahead deciding that “friendly” means “non-hostile” (which, in turn, for sea zones, is the same as saying “friendly or unoccupied”) and that the phrase “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first” means “If the other attacking naval units (possibly comprising one or more submarines which are not being withdrawn) are retreating, all attacking submarines which are being withdrawn must do so before the other naval units” (and that “several” still means “two or more”), then, on any round of combat in which one or more defending units remain,
if one or more (possibly all) of the remaining naval units are submarines, I can (referring to the attacking units only)
normally retreat all naval units (comprising all submarines) to one friendly or unoccupied zone
or specially withdraw one or more submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
or both specially withdraw one or more submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other naval units (comprising any submarines which I have not withdrawn) to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied zone.
What I just said (meaning everything I wrote from the latest “on any round of combat” phrase onwards) is what I believe the writer intended the rules to say (so it is how I would play the game), as well as what I understand you are saying in this topic, yet it is not what I understand the rules and their clarifications are literally actually saying.
In particular, I assume that I am allowed, on a same combat round, to pull the move of special-withdrawing one or more attacking submarines to one zone and regular-retreating all other attacking submarines to one other zone, thus practically being able to split my attacking submarines into two retreating groups on a same round of combat.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that being able to resolve the regular battle first and then conduct SBR only in case the territory was not overtaken is merely another oversight in these old rules, especially considering that the most recent ones force making the SBR first, so the two battles never actually influence each other?

Actually, per the 1991 Rules Clarifications, the SBR must be resolved first.

Is it correct to say that in the most recent rules-sets two battles never influence what may be done in each other beside the case of naval battles before sea-borne assaults?

The case of both attack and SBR against the same territory remains.

Can you please be clearer on how the two battles influence each other in any ways? I see no influence at all! In the SBR, the bomber will either be shot down or will destroy some IPC and, thereafter, will be completely ignored in the regular battle on the same territory. By “influence” I meant “add or remove options to what you can do or change any probabilities”: the rules (as explained) imply that withdrawing from a sea zone may remove withdrawing options within a battle which is made thereafter in an other sea zone, whereas I’m not seeing any kind of options being added or removed in a land battle by making a SBR in the same territory. By the way, I’m not seeing any influence also in games in which SBR damages Industrial Complexes, or whatever else, as long as this is not going to influence what the defender may do (because whether or not the attacker is going to capture or liberate a territory having any amount or some more damage doesn’t matter for combat).

On this matter, since you said

This isn’t the only instance on the results of one battle affecting another. The best example is both attacking and performing an SBR against the same territory, just in case the territory is not captured.

are you sure that, in Classic, a SBR is a “battle”? When I was talking about “two or more battles”, I was assuming that was simply not comprising strategic bombing raids. Reading the rule-book, it doesn’t appear to me that SBR are considered to be battles. Of course, these are just semantics, but I’m curious whether or not a SBR is a battle, in Classic (because I tend to understand that battles and SBR are different things there, but I may be overlooking something somewhere).

Regardless, even if SBRing and regular-attacking the same territory would exert any sort of influence between each other (which I’m not seeing), that is a case of two battles in the same zone, so it is a special case, especially in the moment it is stated that one of the two combats (namely, the SBR) always happens before the other one, as here we have a case in which the rules appear to imply that one happens after the other one, whereas I was actually thinking only about battles in different zones. It is a very different matter to say that two unrelated naval battles in different sea zones may influence each other, as those may be reasonably assumed happening at the same time even though they are resolved one after the other. So let me rewrite my previous statement

My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceeding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended.

as “My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles each of which is in a different zone, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended”.

As to why I think so, I can further explain.

Of course, since the official FAQ affirm that “defending subs can withdraw into sea zones that the attacking forces came from, thus cutting off the attacker’s avenue of retreat. As long as there are no enemy units currently in a sea zone, it’s a legal withdrawal path for defending subs.”, it is clear enough that those submarines must be cutting off retreat to the zone they withdrew and doing so also for all attacking units of every battle still to be resolved, so it is indeed officially stated that battles in different sea zones may thus influence each other (in that a battle may reduce the retreat options of a subsequently resolved battle, for either or both of the attacker and the defender). However, I want to stress that is not convincing me to believe that the withdraw movement was made before the next resolved battle started. In particular, I believe that assuming so would be inconsistent with the fact that, in the “Classic Support Document”, there is a clarification stating that “Subs cannot retreat or withdraw to a sea zone that is or was a battle site on the same turn!”.
For example, let’s say that I attack a battleship alone with a submarine alone moving of one space from zone A to zone B, and in a zone C, which is adjacent to both zone A and zone B, there are only attacking battleships and defending submarines at the end of the Combat Movement phase.
I firstly resolve the battle in zone B, during which both units miss and the attacking submarine withdraw to zone A.
I secondly resolve the battle in zone C, during which all units miss and all the defending submarines withdraw.
In this situation, the defending player is unable to withdraw any defending submarines to A because (apparently) an enemy submarine (withdrawn during a previously resolved battle) is now in the zone and they are also unable to withdraw any defending submarines to B solely because the same enemy submarine has been (or was?) in there: it is like the submarine is at the same time in two different places contemporarily, since the same submarine is the only enemy units which is making impossible for me to move to either one of A and B.
It seems clear enough to me that the rule forbidding you to withdraw to a battle site on the same turn regardless of what happened in that battle has to be based on the assumption that the battle happens at the same time as the currently resolving battle because, if it happened beforehand and each of the defending units was either killed or withdrawn, now that zone would be either friendly or unoccupied from the perspective of the attacker, so there is no reason for it to be non-eligible.
But if the already withdrawn defending submarine in the previously resolved battle is actually still in the zone of that battle when I am withdrawing from the next one (as their presence, which caused the battle, is the only reason why the rules forbid me to go to that zone), then they cannot also be in the zone to which they have been withdrawn.
Also for these reasons, I maintain that I’m still under the strong impression that the original author (Larry Harris) meant that, beside land battles having one or more units offloading from hostile sea zones and beside strategic bombing raids (if strategic bombing raids are battles too), all battles happen at the same time (even though they are resolved sequentially) and every retreated or withdrawn unit is still in the zone of its battle when any subsequently resolved battle ends, so all retreating movements which are happening during the “Combat” phase are just as simultaneous as the movements happening during any other phase, so they all actually happen after all battles of that “Combat” phase have ended. Why, otherwise, would I be forbidden to withdraw defending submarines into a zone where a battle was made on the current phase against only one defending submarine which was withdrawn if that would mean that now there are no enemy units left in that zone?

---

Apologies for the lengthy post, but I don’t think I can make it much smaller and still say all I want to say.

[Krieghund]

@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

Well then, I guess the rule that, on page 19 of the rule-book, says that “attacking subs retreat first and withdraw BACK to ONE adjacent friendly sea zone from which they or any accompanying attacking naval units came”, as well as the clarification in the http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/ClassicSuppDoc.pdf, stating that “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” means that attacking submarines can only withdraw to sea zones currently occupied by one or more units each of which is controlled by the same player controlling the submarine or by a member of his/her alliance (because both passages only say “friendly”, not “friendly or unoccupied”).
So, is it correct (I believe it should not.) to state that, if I move a submarine of one space into combat from zone A to zone B, and, while resolving the battle in B, zone A is unoccupied (so not friendly), then I cannot withdraw the submarine to zone A, whereas I could if there would be one or more own or allied units in the zone? I’m fairly certain this has to be an oversight, and, in both aforementioned passages, the writer or the writers intended to write “friendly or unoccupied” and mistakenly only wrote “friendly”. That is why I was wondering if “friendly” just meant “non-hostile” so comprising “unoccupied” sea zones too, even though that doesn’t really make sense, also literally (hard to see something being friendly if there is nothing friendly there).

This is obviously an oversight, as the intent is obviously that an unoccupied sea zone may be retreated to, as stated in the Rulebook.

Moreover, the firstly aforementioned passage of the “Classic Support Document” appears to say that attacking submarines cannot even regularly retreat when they would be retreating with other units. Indeed, after having said that “Subs may retreat as above, or they could “withdraw,””, the document, on the same section, goes on stating that (as I’ve already quoted) “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came”.
These two sentences appear to be in partial direct contradiction of one an other: the first sentence is telling me that I can choose either to retreat my submarine as normal or to withdraw them under their special rules, whereas the second sentence is telling me that, if I choose to “retreat” my submarines with other naval units, I must instead “withdraw” them, assumingly under their special withdrawing rules. So, literally, this means that I can normally retreat submarines only if all remaining naval units attacking in the battle are submarines, otherwise submarines must specially withdraw if they want to leave the battle together with non-submarine units.
Is the sentence “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” meaning the same as saying “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must use its special withdraw ability” or not?

What difference does it make? Even if the subs are forced to withdraw first, the remaining units can retreat to the same sea zone they did.

Can you please be clearer on how the two battles influence each other in any ways? I see no influence at all! In the SBR, the bomber will either be shot down or will destroy some IPC and, thereafter, will be completely ignored in the regular battle on the same territory.

The only influence is the number of IPCs collected, should the territory be captured and be a capital.

are you sure that, in Classic, a SBR is a “battle”?

The Rulebook refers to it as a “combat”.

Also for these reasons, I maintain that I’m still under the strong impression that the original author (Larry Harris) meant that, beside land battles having one or more units offloading from hostile sea zones and beside strategic bombing raids (if strategic bombing raids are battles too), all battles happen at the same time (even though they are resolved sequentially) and every retreated or withdrawn unit is still in the zone of its battle when any subsequently resolved battle ends, so all retreating movements which are happening during the “Combat” phase are just as simultaneous as the movements happening during any other phase, so they all actually happen after all battles of that “Combat” phase have ended. Why, otherwise, would I be forbidden to withdraw defending submarines into a zone where a battle was made on the current phase against only one defending submarine which was withdrawn if that would mean that now there are no enemy units left in that zone?

I agree. However, there is a difference between withdrawing to a battle site and withdrawing to a retreat site. Withdrawing to a battle site would interfere with the course of that battle, which is happening concurrently. Withdrawals, however, are but a small part of battles. In determining who may retreat to a given zone, it’s simply a question of who got there first, which is determined by the order of the combats.

[Cernel]

@krieghund said in Submarine withdrawal question:

Moreover, the firstly aforementioned passage of the “Classic Support Document” appears to say that attacking submarines cannot even regularly retreat when they would be retreating with other units. Indeed, after having said that “Subs may retreat as above, or they could “withdraw,””, the document, on the same section, goes on stating that (as I’ve already quoted) “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came”.
These two sentences appear to be in partial direct contradiction of one an other: the first sentence is telling me that I can choose either to retreat my submarine as normal or to withdraw them under their special rules, whereas the second sentence is telling me that, if I choose to “retreat” my submarines with other naval units, I must instead “withdraw” them, assumingly under their special withdrawing rules. So, literally, this means that I can normally retreat submarines only if all remaining naval units attacking in the battle are submarines, otherwise submarines must specially withdraw if they want to leave the battle together with non-submarine units.
Is the sentence “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” meaning the same as saying “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must use its special withdraw ability” or not?

What difference does it make? Even if the subs are forced to withdraw first, the remaining units can retreat to the same sea zone they did.

One difference, which we already clarified (by you calling it “obviously an oversight”), is that the rules as written allow regular retreat to friendly and unoccupied zones, whereas they allow special withdraw only to friendly (not to unoccupied) zones (unless the submarines are “several”), but we already sorted out we should read all occurrences of “friendly sea” in the withdraw rules as “friendly or unoccupied sea”.

Once we turn all mentioned “friendly sea” occurrences to “friendly or unoccupied sea”, the differences generated by the presence of a rule which (unclearly, in my opinion) says something equivalent to “if retreating together with one or more non-submarine naval units, every remaining attacking submarine must use its special withdraw ability” (Is this what the rule is actually stating?) would have the consequences that, within a same round of combat, if there are one or more non-submarine attacking naval units in the battle after “defender fires remaining units”,

• I cannot have one or more but not all attacking submarines withdrawing to one zone while all other attacking submarines retreat to an other zone (together with all attacking non-submarine naval units),
• and I cannot decide to wait to see how many defending submarines are withdrawn and where they are withdrawn before deciding if and where to retreat either all attacking submarines or the part of them I haven’t withdrawn.

[Krieghund]

@cernel OK, I see what you’re saying. However, I don’t think the statement, “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first…” means that subs cannot retreat with other units. Since this is under the heading of “Submarine Withdrawing”, I believe it applies only when subs exercise that option. In other words, if a sub (or subs) opts to withdraw on the same round that the attacker retreats, it must do so before the other units retreat, and any subs that do not opt to withdraw separately (as is stated earlier that they may) retreat with the other units to the same sea zone.

Thus, in the round that the attacker retreats, any or all subs may opt to withdraw separately (to one sea zone), and the remaining subs may retreat with the main force (to one sea zone). There is also nothing stopping both of these movements from being to the same sea zone.

[Cernel]

@krieghund said in Submarine withdrawal question:

@cernel OK, I see what you’re saying. However, I don’t think the statement, “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first…” means that subs cannot retreat with other units. Since this is under the heading of “Submarine Withdrawing”, I believe it applies only when subs exercise that option. In other words, if a sub (or subs) opts to withdraw on the same round that the attacker retreats, it must do so before the other units retreat, and any subs that do not opt to withdraw separately (as is stated earlier that they may) retreat with the other units to the same sea zone.

Thus, in the round that the attacker retreats, any or all subs may opt to withdraw separately (to one sea zone), and the remaining subs may retreat with the main force (to one sea zone). There is also nothing stopping both of these movements from being to the same sea zone.

So, have I covered the matter fully when I wrote
@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:

on any round of combat in which one or more defending units remain,
if one or more (possibly all) of the remaining [attacking] naval units are submarines, I can (referring to the attacking units only)
normally retreat all naval units (comprising all submarines) to one friendly or unoccupied [sea] zone
or specially withdraw one or more submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
or both specially withdraw one or more submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other naval units (comprising any submarines which I have not withdrawn) to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied [sea] zone.

?

About what attacking naval units may do when withdrawing or retreating, does my text (I just quoted) give at least the same amount of information that the entire “Submarine Withdrawing” section of the http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/ClassicSuppDoc.pdf intends to give from the phrase “Subs may retreat as above” to the phrase “BACK to one adjacent friendly or unoccupied sea zone.” (39 lines in total), beside stating that the sea zone to which “the attacking sub must withdraw” must be one “from which any of the attacking units came”?

[Krieghund]

@cernel That looks right.