BIZARRE question… re Canal's.

[kcdzim]

@Gargantua:

Warwinner, did you ever see my post about the “secret retreat” at Gibraltar?

Basically, using a sub to pull all your units through an enemy controlled Canal? :D

Krieghund deflated it :S

Yeah, that and your ridiculous planned carrier retreat to boost carrier range and setup a landing spot…  deflated that too.

[Gargantua]

Well actually… that was approved overall, just the caveat of the canal portion was rejected.

It’s still entirely possible to abuse the combat phase, by planning a retreat, that will move a carrier 3 spaces to the combat, then forward another space (4 total) to create the -possibility- of a valid landing zone.

Even if all battles involved are absolutely hopeless.

[kcdzim]

@Gargantua:

Well actually… that was approved overall, just the caveat of the canal portion was rejected.

It’s still entirely possible to abuse the combat phase, by planning a retreat, that will move a carrier 3 spaces to the combat, then forward another space (4 total) to create the -possibility- of a valid landing zone.

Even if all battles involved are absolutely hopeless.

Really, we’re doing this again?  No, it’s not.  You CANNOT plan to use a retreat to extend carrier range to create a landing zone.  I’ll find the thread if you like - it was soundly rejected.

[Gargantua]

Well you can land on a carrier that has retreated…

and it’s legal to retreat to ANY zone you sent attacking forces in from.

And retreating is a CHOICE you can make at any stage of a battle, so the power is in your hands.

It’s no less absurd then sending 1 sub to a sea zone of 1000 battleships, so that the zone could be ‘possibly cleared’ allowing planes to land on a carrier that moves there.

Atleast my example is functional. :)

[kcdzim]

@Gargantua:

Well you can land on a carrier that has retreated…

and it’s legal to retreat to ANY zone you sent attacking forces in from.

And retreating is a CHOICE you can make at any stage of a battle, so the power is in your hands.

It’s no less absurd then sending 1 sub to a sea zone of 1000 battleships, so that the zone could be ‘possibly cleared’ allowing planes to land on a carrier that moves there.

Atleast my example is functional. :)

I’m not disputing that you can land on a retreated carrier.  You simply cannot set up the fight from the beginning REQUIRING the carrier to be in a seazone that it can ONLY reach if you retreat.

@Krieghund:

@kcdzim:

The letter of the rule implies you plan to win the engagement to get access, not plan to lose the engagement to leapfrog.

The rules also clearly state that you cannot use a planned retreat to secure a landing space.

[Gargantua]

Krieghund clearly states that. Fine.

But the rules don’t! :p  atleast I’m not seeing it… ?

[kcdzim]

@Gargantua:

Krieghund clearly states that. Fine.

But the rules don’t! :p  atleast I’m not seeing it… ?

Pacific 1940 Rules pdf available online

Page 26, Air Units: paragraph 5:

“In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter or tactical bomber.”

[Gargantua]

Damnit KCD…

[Axisplaya]

yeah, he really got you this time !  :lol: :lol:

[DizzKneeLand33]

Geesh, even I know that one, Gargantua…. ;)

[Gargantua]

Yea well… the Carriers can still move 4, and the planes can still land on them.

And Although we are ENTIRELY in control of the outcome of the battle, We’re just not allowed to count on it, unlike how we can count on 1 sub sinking 1000 battleships, and send planes to their death.

Ridiculous!

KCDZIM May be right, but atleast I’m sane.

[Bischoffshof]

Ok technically you could plan the retreat and land the planes on the carrier. So long as the planes also had another optional landing point. Functionality is iffy but the rules are correct yes, Because i believe the rules state that you cannot retreat just to create a landing zone for planes if they have another point then its completely legal? Just playing Devil’s advocate.

[Guest]

@Bischoffshof:

Ok technically you could plan the retreat and land the planes on the carrier. So long as the planes also had another optional landing point. Functionality is iffy but the rules are correct yes, Because i believe the rules state that you cannot retreat just to create a landing zone for planes if they have another point then its completely legal? Just playing Devil’s advocate.

I think the point of this assumes that there are TWO naval battles.  If there were just one battle with carriers coming from one direction and planes and other ships coming from another direction, you could always assert that it is possible to win (ie all attacker dice hit in all rounds and defenders never hit), so there is no worry about where the carrier may or may not retreat to.  The issue is whether you could attack a sea zone with a carrier and some other ship coming from another direction, planning to retreat the carrier to that other location in order to create a “possible” landing spot for planes attacking another sea zone.  In reality the carrier probably dies and so do the planes attacking that other sea zone but its better to have fought and lost than to have never fought at all.  Alas, its not allowed.

[Most Holy]

Either way the planes only get 4 moves they don’t get an extra retreat move like sea and land units do. I don’t think planes fighting in a different zone could assume a retreat by the aircraft carrier as a possible landing spot. If the question is of fighters in the same zone as the carrier then the carrier is the safe landing zone in the disputed zone. If the fighters have used their 4 moves to get to the fight and the carrier retreats they die.

I may have your scenario mixed up and apologize if I do but that is the reading of the rules in my mind.

[warwinner]

I think noncombat would be the best way to utilize this. Can’t think of a specific example at this exact moment, but something along the lines of linking up some land based planes to merge into a carrier task force.

[Gargantua]

Oh I do stuff like this all the time.

In my most recent tournament game agaisnt Sound Crescent, I built a russian ACC so British planes could nuke the Italian fleet. :P

Threatening phantom landing possibilities is definetly one of my favourite game moves.  That’s why I like exploring EVERY possible loophole or consideration.

[Guest]

@Most:

Either way the planes only get 4 moves they don’t get an extra retreat move like sea and land units do. I don’t think planes fighting in a different zone could assume a retreat by the aircraft carrier as a possible landing spot. If the question is of fighters in the same zone as the carrier then the carrier is the safe landing zone in the disputed zone. If the fighters have used their 4 moves to get to the fight and the carrier retreats they die.

I may have your scenario mixed up and apologize if I do but that is the reading of the rules in my mind.

I think you see the scenario like I see it, and yeah that wouldn’t be allowed.

[wirkey]

@Gargantua:

Just bear with me here…

• Japan has NEVER declared war on France.

• France Controls Egypt and Trans-Jordan.

Can Japanese ships pass through the Suez Canal?  Or do they have to request -permission- like the Russians do in the Baltic (This is what I assume)?

DO NOT ASK why, how, or when this happend. It’ll take about a week of explaining…

We have set up a houserule, that if you request a permission to transit and it is declined, that is like a DOW. So if Russia asks for transit and Germany declines it, Russia is free to attack Germany. Same would be for Japan requesting to pass Suez. If rejected, that would be an unprovoked DOW against Japan

[Gargantua]

Interesting Wirkey…

The repsonse of course, is to have -demands- in return to whoever has requested egress through the canal :P

“when you move your troops from here to there, I will let your ships through.” :D  A deal is not a DOW!