Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).
@Young:
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).
The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports. The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle. Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.
That would mean that a single submarine can block an amphibious assault from happening, which dosen’t seem accurate. If you are in fact correct, that would make this rule broken.
If you attack the cruiser, you attack the sub. � You can only ignore lone subs. � � The germans cannot make this amphibious assault as they have nothing that can hit the sub when they engage the cruiser. � But…They can sink the cruiser this turn and make the assault next turn as the carrier will allow the transport to ignore the sub.
To clarify, a lone transport(s) can freely ignore a sub for movement, but it cannot amphibiously assault if it is unescorted in the same seazone as an enemy sub. � If the transport has a warship escort with it, a lone enemy sub(s) can be ignored. � The escort must be from the same power that controls the transport (it is possible for a friendly warship from another power to already be in the seazone…it can’t help you with this)
An unescorted transport(s) CAN unload in the presence of an enemy subs during the NON-combat phase, however.
@Young:
That would mean that a single submarine can block an amphibious assault from happening, which dosen’t seem accurate. If you are in fact correct, that would make this rule broken.
It may not seem accurate, but it’s in the same line as one destroyer stopping a whole fleet from moving two spaces or from being able to do shore bombardment.
And yes, you could attack the cruiser and destroy it with the planes and then during non-combat your transports could ignore the remaining sub. However, also note that although the carrier has no attack value and the planes can’t hit subs, the sub can still hit the carrier, so it doesn’t make sense that you could keep it out of battle when it could do damage. But yes, once the cruiser is destroyed by the planes and the carrier is destroyed by the sub, only the planes and sub are left and the sub can still sink the transports.
Let me add one more bit of clarification. While defending transports are “auto-sunk” when they are alone, attacking transports do have the option to retreat at the end of any combat round.
OK than, so be it…. Thanks for the explanations.
@SAS:
@Young:
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently). Â
The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports. The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle. Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.
Incorrect. The attacking transports can retreat at any time they choose. So the Submarine might decide to engage, but it won’t necessarily kill all the attacking transports unless the attacking player is either unaware of the rules or fails to understand their importance.
You’re welcome. Â :-) Â What’s neat about the situation you presented is it gives the impression that the submarine blocked the German move, when in fact, the cruiser was the culprit. Â The sub alone, which the Germans can’t even hit with what they have, could not have stopped the move.
Ok, I’ve got a question now. I think I have just found a sleeze tactic. When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft. If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft. I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update
@Cmdr:
@SAS:
@Young:
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).� �Â
The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports.� The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle.� Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.
Incorrect. The attacking transports can retreat at any time they choose. So the Submarine might decide to engage, but it won’t necessarily kill all the attacking transports unless the attacking player is either unaware of the rules or fails to understand their importance.
I covered that 2 posts pror to yours. :wink:
Ok, I’ve got a question now. I think I have just found a sleeze tactic. When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft. If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft. I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update
Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed. So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too. I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.
@Cmdr:
Ok, I’ve got a question now.� I think I have just found a sleeze tactic.� When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft.� If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft.� I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update
Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed. So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too. I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.
No aircraft is required in Global to carry them. They are simply launched from an airfield and subject to AA fire. But yes, in the older games you needed a bomber and this was not an issue.
@Cmdr:
Ok, I’ve got a question now.�� I think I have just found a sleeze tactic.�� When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft.�� If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft.�� I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update
Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed.� So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too.� I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.
No aircraft is required in Global to carry them. They are simply launched from an airfield and subject to AA fire. But yes, in the older games you needed a bomber and this was not an issue.
I have not run into this problem yet, as I can’t find anyone with the testicular fortitude to play me in a game with technology! (which is really an insult, coming from me. mwuhahahaha!)
I suppose then they would be immune to aa gun fire and thus a much more serious threat than before! Although, it probably wouldn’t come into play very often. First you need to get the technology, then you have to have a method to deploy the technology where your opponent has a gun, and then you have to have the desire to deploy the technology in a territory where your opponent has a gun. Though, it does raise some interesting ideas!
It does say they are subject to aa fire, but it does not cleary specify individually or with your other aircraft. � I think the western allies could use this from the UK vs Western Europe to negate german AA fire against aircraft units, for example. � It reminds me of the old transport rules where they were used as cheap fodder to protect warships.
Worse still: Players can use them in attacks against adjacent land territories they could have walked into just to pad their aircraft from aa hits. Yikes.
You get two paratroopers per airbase per turn, no limit. I would have prefered limit 2 per turn in total, deploying from airbases. The way it is written could have paradrops left, right and centre. Paratroopers are supposed to be a bit rarer than that. Â However, they cannot attack by themselves (there must be other land units), so that is a bit of a balance, I suppose.
I’m really interested in an official ruling. I hope they are targetted on their own, that will solve any issues with them.
Official ruling: You roll AA for paratroopers along with AA for air units, and the attacker chooses casualties, as normal.
Thanks Kevin. Â Can we fix that in the next update (pleeeease)? Â They aren’t paratroopers as it stands, so much as cheap fodder to protect fighters and bombers from AA fire. Â The technology is more like: Â “You can now use infantry to take AA hits instead of your aircraft units as long as you have an airbase nearby.”
Anyone else feel strongly about changing this? It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.
I will, of course, defer to your judgement. My suggested fix is to have the paras rolled on their own (and maybe limit their use to 2 per turn per power, but that is more minor). You are right in that it is rare, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it. � It just seems like it is really easy to abuse the intent of the technology. If I were playing against someone who did this turn after turn, I’d find it infuriating. In terms of realism, it’s like the sea rules. They disallowed transport fodder because it was really unrealistic. Picture the allied command saying “We can sacrifice the entire 82nd and 101st airborne divisions to save 200 fighters.  We’ll send them first, when the AA guns are out of ammo, send in the fighters (General Zap Brannigan)”. It really seems like it doesn’t work as is. Don’t make me grovel! :lol:
Thanks Kevin. � Can we fix that in the next update (pleeeease)? � They aren’t paratroopers as it stands, so much as cheap fodder to protect fighters and bombers from AA fire. � The technology is more like: � “You can now use infantry to take AA hits instead of your aircraft units as long as you have an airbase nearby.”
Anyone else feel strongly about changing this? It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.
No, I’m more inclined to leave it as it is. If you get Paratroopers then you’ve earned the insurance on your fighters if you ask me. Should make them more fun, previously I only ever used them for sniping undefended islands or territories I could get in range too, now I could actually use them for something else.
