POLL: Sub rules in reference to unescorted transports MEGASTEIN vs LARRY H.

[Gargantua]

The Poll is CLEAR.

Unlike the last one, please cast your vote.

If you have a question about the poll not being clear, ask here first.

[lozmoid]

I voted for the second option.

And I would go even further to suggest that Submarines should block all unescorted Transport movement; not just amphibous assaults. This would be in the same vein as the ‘Destroyers block all Sub movement’ rule.

[Gargantua]

I would agree…

This would bring back the old “Sub Stall” rule, where you can’t even load your transport, if it starts in the same zone as a submarine.

[The Dessert Fox]

They should get a choice whether to take a shot or block

[lnmajor]

@The:

They should get a choice whether to take a shot or block

I use this rule. Leaves the most flexability.

[MEGAEINSTEIN]

What a mess with concepts! Blocking is good but is independent to fire at 2 against unescorted transports.
wake up to reality.

In the poll i have on going the question is if subs can attack on 1 or 2 the unscorted transports that move to or through the sea zone the sub is as described in Europe rules, or if they lose this ability like Alpha does.
blocking or not has nothing to do with this.

The 2 rules you put as exclusive can be mutual, in other words you can use both.

In the poll i have going on after clarifying really well what the poll was about the result is 24 votes to maintain sneack attack and 3 votes to remove sneack attack and the results before the clarification where 14 votes to maintain and 2 to abbolish so giving the actual total of 38 votes to maintain and 5 to abbolish sneack attack against unescorted transports.

And it is possible to have sneack attack rule in simultaneous with block rule:

example: usa unescorted transport in the middle of atlantic moves through a zone with a german sub and this sub sneack attacks the transport. In the same round of play another unescorted usa transport is blocked to participate in an amphibious assault  in mediterrain by the presence of an italian sub.

[Gargantua]

It’s a choice option,

Do you want to keep the rule about the pot shot?  or do you want the rule to be that subs just to block the transport movement?

Your poll goes into NO detail and says, do you want Sneak attacks or not as per Larry Harris - It’s so vague and is NOT BETWEEN 2 MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ITEMS as you put it.  How is that any different?

Subs can block and maintain at the same time sneack attack against unescorted transporsts.

How does this even make sense?  if the Sub BLOCKS the transport, that means that the transport CANNOT enter the zone of the sub, to even be sneak attacked. (Unnecessary Ad Hominem. – GG)

[Sloan]

I dont understand why subs would block… I can see why a surface warship would because the transport could see it and not enter because they knew it was there… but subs are underwater so I like the pot shot because its like a sneak attack which the sub was literally made for

[Rorschach]

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

In the poll i have going on after clarifying really well what the poll was about the result is 24-3 and 14-2 before the clarification with a total of 38-5 to maintain sneack attack against unescorted transports.

Clear as water. :-D

If that water is full of mud sure … and your math is horrible.  You can’t just add 24/3 and 14/2 to get 38/5 to maintain when your poll was “keep surprise attack or remove surprise attack” with most of those votes before you clarified that this was NOT what you were polling about AND there is no option to remove a vote once someone realizes how vague the question was.

[Rorschach]

I say subs block unescorted transports during Amphibeous assault (if they didn’t then the subs would simply sink the unescorted transport if it does not retreat) as it is a combat move, but unescorted transports are free to roam in sub occupied (NOT surface ship occupied) zones during Non-Combat movement.

Why would I say that?

During the non-combat movement phase, subs are considered submerged.  And those sea zones are huge areas.  And why should there be any combat related dice rolling during NON combat related movements?  If I’m making a combat move absolutely there should be a combat related roll.  During non-combat, there is NO combat (thus the term “non-combat”).

[lnmajor]

What if subs had to make a detection roll to lock on to unescorted transports before they can attack them? shouldnt it be a game of chance? if transports want to try to slip by subs that would be cool. for example, surface ships were much harder to detect at night for subs. also what if enemy sub doesnt block sea zone but restricts ship movement to 1. when subs were known to be in the area ships had to zig zag instead of running a strait coarse. this works! im using this from now on. thanks guys.  :mrgreen:

[special forces]

I feel that the potshot rule adds most to gameplay. (also blocking makes no sense)

Subs, the AA of the sea  :wink: