#1). Does a submarine create a hostile sea zone for purposes of loading and unloading troops during the combat move phase? What if during the combat move phase there are other sea units present(including destroyers) on the moving players side? Does that still make the sea zone hostile if there is a sub present. I want to say the answer is no but want to make sure.
#2). If a Sub moves into a sea zone, with an enemy destroyer present, during the combat move phase, the Sub can’t submerge, correct?
#3). If a Sub moves into a sea zone, with an enemy destroyer present, during the non-combat move phase, can the Sub submerge?
Hi Commando Brado.
1. A Sub never makes a SZ Hostile. It just prevents an unescorted TT from unloading in Combat.
The Sea Units have to be belong to the power which owns the Sub to make the SZ Hostile. Not an ally.
A Sub alone does not make the SZ hostile.
2. Correct. It has to fight. Cannot submerge while an enemy DD is present.
3. In non combat, the Sub had to stop its movement in the SZ with the DD.
There is no combat or submerging, as it is Non Combat.
I think his first question relates to this example:
Let’s say a seazone has a German sub and also a UK destroyer. America wants to bring in only a transport in combat movement.
Legal or not? Basically does the UK destroyer act as an escort to allow the transport to ignore the sub or would it have to be an American surface escort.
No.
The Warship Has to belong to the power whose TT it is. Even an American Sub, in your example . Sorry if I was unclear.
Page 21 of Europe 2nd Edition Rulebook. Just found it.
If a submarine begins its turn in the same space as a destroyer, may it move out of the sea zone without conducting combat?
For transport, if it starts in a sea zone in the same space as an enemy surface warship, can it move out of the sea zone without conducting combat?
Yes to both examples, Axisman.
In both cases, you would have to move in the Combat Move phase. Note that this is the exception to the rule that units can only move in this phase, if they participate in combat.
For transport, if it starts in a sea zone in the same space as an enemy surface warship, can it move out of the sea zone without conducting combat?
Wittman is correct that the answer is yes.
To be clear, that transport may NOT load units from that starting zone unless your power has just declared war on the power that has the surface warship in the transport’s zone, that very turn. The transport CAN load up units from a different non-hostile sea zone on its route in order to conduct an amphibious assault. It can not pick up ground units and hold them because it is the combat movement phase.
Your transport can move in the combat movement phase to escape combat with the surface warship, but since moving in the combat movement phase, will not be able to do anything in the non-combat movement phase.
So a transport starting in a hostile zone cannot do any non-combat transporting that turn.
For transport, if it starts in a sea zone in the same space as an enemy surface warship, can it move out of the sea zone without conducting combat?
Wittman is correct that the answer is yes.
To be clear, that transport may NOT load units from that starting zone unless your power has just declared war on the power that has the surface warship in the transport’s zone, that very turn. The transport CAN load up units from a different non-hostile sea zone on its route in order to conduct an amphibious assault. It can not pick up ground units and hold them because it is the combat movement phase.
Your transport can move in the combat movement phase to escape combat with the surface warship, but since moving in the combat movement phase, will not be able to do anything in the non-combat movement phase.
So a transport starting in a hostile zone cannot do any non-combat transporting that turn.
I really don’t like that UK can put a DD in Japans sector of transports and then have Anzac declare war so Japan can’t use his transports to pick the men up with. I feel like that needs to be changed somehow. Doesn’t make sense to me from a logical point of view…
I am sure that was a loophole in the rules - an unintended exploit, for what it’s worth.
Nevertheless, it does cost the Allies to do that tactic, and if the Axis player knows about it he can keep from having all his transports in one zone, or just leave them loaded the turn before.
It costs the Allies - they have to do an unprovoked DOW, UK can’t do it so they lose out on the 5 from the NO, and it costs UK a destroyer too.
Also, you are doing an unprovoked attack but the UK can’t declare war, so can’t sucker punch Japan anywhere. Only ANZAC can.
I do realize that to leave some units on transports decreases Japan’s threat level on Yunnan and the like. But it’s not such a great exploit that it would even happen more often than not. Something to be aware of as Axis, though.
I am sure that was a loophole in the rules - an unintended exploit, for what it’s worth.
I don’t see it being any different than using German planes to can open in the South Pacific which some players like to do. It’s a player using their ally and turn order to accomplish a strategy. I don’t see it as a loophole or a cheap move. Afterall, the transports can still leave the sea zone, load in another sea zone and attack.
I do, because it is unique.
It is because of the political rules for UK/ANZ, and I have a strong feeling this particular exploit was unforeseen, whereas your examples were definitely foreseen and intended.
@IKE:
I don’t see it as a loophole or a cheap move. Afterall, the transports can still leave the sea zone, load in another sea zone and attack.
Um, no. Normally we’re talking a bunch of transports in Z36 and few if any other places to go pick up guys.
If you are the Axis player, poised to take the money islands on J2 or J3, you don’t realize this exploit is possible, you will feel like you were punched below the belt if the Allied player completely thwarts your plans with this gamey move.
Yes, I’ve had it used against me, no it didn’t hurt that bad, but I believe I was aware of the possibility at the time, too.
Has Krieghund addressed this and confirmed whether it was intended or a miss?
Yep, it’s fine.
I know Krieghund has addressed this topic, but IIRC he was silent on whether it was intended or not. Which leads me to believe it was not. :-)
Not that it matters. The rule is what it is.
