Unoccupied Hostile Territories

@panther Thank you very much panther…

Thanks for the fast reply! I just want to ask, what version are these rules for? I could have sworn I have the Spring: 1942 (not the 2nd edition), but the rules in my book say on page 8:
“Sea zones are either friendly (contain friendly units) or hostile (contain enemy units). They are never neutral. An unoccupied sea zone is friendly to everyone.”
It then goes on to talk about neutral territories… It makes no reference to “surface warships…” Am I asking my question in the wrong version of the game? Is this the Spring: 1942 2nd edition?
Thanks so much!  :-D

EDIT: I just looked up on amazon, and by process of what the box looks like deduced that the version of the game we have is A&A Revised Edition… So I will post my question there instead. Thanks so much anyway!!

Wow thanks I wish the rulebook stated it that way

Thanks Krieg, clears it up for me.  I would like to see a rule modification whereby the subs could ignore the surface fleet assuming there was no DD in the case where they start out in a hostile SZ thus allowing them to move during the non-combat movement phase.  Although, that would hurt me in my present situation so just wait until my game is over before changing the world for me…… wry grin

@Isnala:

Hobbes: Remember as the attacker you not only delcare what your attacking, you also decide which attack happens when. Using you example you delcare that your attacking Egypt and blitzing  with the intent for the tanks to reinforce Egypt. You then decide which of the attacks first, I.e. do the tanks blitz first then aid in the attack on Egypt (which IMOO, would be the better plan in your example) or do you attack Egypt first and then blitz congo with the tanks winding up in  as the second move in the blitz.

Like I said unless your worried about losing the attack and thus too many troops to make holding the territory a bad idea, adding the tanks to to  could help prevent this as they attack on a 3 or less.

-Ish

I think you misunderstood my point. The idea was that the UK makes 2 combat movements to Egypt and Congo and then moves the armor in non-combat from Congo to Egypt.

@Nomarclegs:

Hmm… So by “friendly” destroyer/s the rule book is referring to only those of the actual attacking power?

In the case of the attacker, yes.  A friendly destroyer must be “in the battle” in order to affect subs.  Since allied units don’t attack together, the only friendly destroyers in the battle will belong to the attacking power.

The defender, however, will benefit from destroyers belonging to an ally, since all units in the sea zone defend together in a battle.

No, it’s not. Germany already made his combat move when attacking the Caucasus. The attack on Moscow would be a second combat move carried out after combat itself. That’s not allowed, even when the tanks have not moved before. The only movement left after combat, would be the non-combat move, which does not include attacks.

@Krieghund:

Loading onto and/or unloading from transports is definitely considered to be movement for land units, as they are moving from one space to another.

Yeah, true, what I meant was that the sea zones the transport moves through do not count as spaces for the land units, only the territories where they’re being loaded and offloaded do.