This rule was actually changed from the way it was in Revised in order to prevent air units from getting an extra movement. In Revised, when a carrier was mobilized fighters were allowed to be moved from the territory containing the IC onto the carrier. Under that rule, a fighter could move from New South Wales and attack Japanese-held Western Australia, then fly back to New South Wales in noncombat movement, then be moved onto a new carrier in sea zone 62 in the Mobilize New Units phase, resulting in five spaces of movement.
Carriers attacking transports to retreat, can they?
-
Then your ‘warp drive’ thinking would have to apply to all retreating units, land and sea. When units retreat from a tt, inf move 2 spaces, and armor may end up moving 3. This is not about your house rules but the real rules.
Nope. There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want. I thought that was obvious, but I guess this thread shows otherwise. shrugs
And that wasn’t a real house rule either, just a joke. I rarely use house house rules in any game (but will on occasion, I admit). Nothing is more annoying than learning the rules to a game and sitting down to play the first time with some new players who then tell you they have rewritten half the game. Of course, that would still annoy me less than someone who was arguing it was ok to retreat forward after “non-combat combat move”. :lol:
I’m pretty sure the AAR rulebook (and maybe other rulebooks since – I just remember it in AAR because that was the first one I ever read) specifically & explicitly states that players may attack a territory from opposite sides for the sole purpose of being able to retreat all units to one side, effectively allowing a group of infantry (or whatever) to move an extra space – and through enemy territory to boot, so I don’t know why you think Wilson’s suggestion is so outrageous. To disallow it would seem inconsistent in many ways, and to allow it seems most certainly justified by precedent, from how it seems to me: giving a unit an extra move via rendezvous & retreat already exists in the game. If this is not allowed for the CVs in this scenario, it would only be because of the special case of a 0 vs 0 “battle” where no real combat is possible.
The practical differences are these
In the CV vs trn scenario, there is no risk of hits, whereas in other similar scenarios there are. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, when you think about the realism of it.
In the CV scenario, the extra movement does not allow the CV to pass through hostile territory, whereas other similar scenarios do. This difference actually seems to favor the CV scenario as being more realistic than the already-accepted scenarios.It seems to me that to allow this would be the most intuitive according to the rules, but then again – I haven’t read the latest rules lately.
EDIT
@moralecheck:Nope. There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want.
all units can gain an extra movement point by attacking from two different territrory/szs and all units retreating to the same territory/sz.
for example
japan has a 2destroyers in sz6
usa has a carrier in sz26 and a carrier and destroyer in sz19usa attacks sz6 with all three units then retreats units to sz19
the carrier and destroyer that started in sz26 has made a clever move that allows it to move 4 spaces(just like any navy battle that allows a retreat).remember carriers are warships and are allowed to participate in attacks and take hits just like all other units. now lets look at my original example
japan has only a transport in sz6
usa has a carrier in sz26 and a a carrier in sz19can both carriers attack sz6?
if so then the carriers can retreat to sz19. the carrier that started in sz26 has made a clever move that allows it to move 4 spaces(just like any navy battle that allows a retreat) but without risking damage.kreighund do you have a ruling stating that carriers can not attack without another type of warship involved in the attack? or a ruling that carriers can attack by themselves?
I will concede on the movement issue. I have been convinced by you and BadSpelling. I still think setting up a non-fight for a fake retreat is not on the level though. There is not much we can do but await a ruling. I don’t think another warship should be required for a carrier to engage, aircraft are fine too.
Oops, I didn’t see the third page.! Sorry to beat a dead horse!
-
@Battling:
The thought that a carrier cant sink a transport seems silly but I’m not sure if they had more than aa capability. I thougt Essex class CVs had a couple of 5inch mounts.
They did, you are right. But nobody, I mean, NOBODY would send in carriers for an offensive attack without escorts or aircraft. What if the unescorted transports were a decoy? The carrier closes in on the empty transport for the easy kill…and it’s a q-ship*. In the game you lose a carrier and you plop down 14-18 ipcs (I forget what carriers are now) and you get a new one, in the war you order a new one and wait 4-6 years while they build it. So think of carriers not being allowed to attack as reflection of this, using a carrier offensively without planes as a light warship is really hokey.
Q-ships were warships disguised as freighters in WWI. They were meant to draw in u-boats who would surface to sink them with their deck guns instead of precious torpedoes.
Agreed
-
You know what is more lame (and confirmed by krieghund)? Say UK units are in a US transport in Japan SZ. If the UK units try to unload into korea, the Japanese fighter can scramble. Since there is no UK ships, there is no combat (remember that since it is not US or Japan’s turn, Japan cannot attack the transport). However, since only the Japanese fighter remains, UK “lost” the battle and can’t land its units.
-
You know what is more lame (and confirmed by krieghund)? Say UK units are in a US transport in Japan SZ. If the UK units try to unload into korea, the Japanese fighter can scramble. Since there is no UK ships, there is no combat (remember that since it is not US or Japan’s turn, Japan cannot attack the transport). However, since only the Japanese fighter remains, UK “lost” the battle and can’t land its units.
I don’t think unloading from a transport is a sea battle
-
You know what is more lame (and confirmed by krieghund)? Say UK units are in a US transport in Japan SZ. If the UK units try to unload into korea, the Japanese fighter can scramble. Since there is no UK ships, there is no combat (remember that since it is not US or Japan’s turn, Japan cannot attack the transport). However, since only the Japanese fighter remains, UK “lost” the battle and can’t land its units.
I don’t think unloading from a transport is a sea battle
I agree. However, krieghund said that in this case, the fighter can scramble and prevent the transport from unloading by creating a sea battle where no one gets shot at.
-
You know what is more lame (and confirmed by krieghund)? Say UK units are in a US transport in Japan SZ. If the UK units try to unload into korea, the Japanese fighter can scramble. Since there is no UK ships, there is no combat (remember that since it is not US or Japan’s turn, Japan cannot attack the transport). However, since only the Japanese fighter remains, UK “lost” the battle and can’t land its units.
I don’t think unloading from a transport is a sea battle
I agree. However, krieghund said that in this case, the fighter can scramble and prevent the transport from unloading by creating a sea battle where no one gets shot at.
link?
-
-
You know what is more lame (and confirmed by krieghund)? Say UK units are in a US transport in Japan SZ. If the UK units try to unload into korea, the Japanese fighter can scramble. Since there is no UK ships, there is no combat (remember that since it is not US or Japan’s turn, Japan cannot attack the transport). However, since only the Japanese fighter remains, UK “lost” the battle and can’t land its units.
I don’t think unloading from a transport is a sea battle
I agree. However, krieghund said that in this case, the fighter can scramble and prevent the transport from unloading by creating a sea battle where no one gets shot at.
The UK not only can’t land it’s units, but it has to endure one round of defensive fire from the scrambled unit(s) before it can retreat. Any units on those transports are lost. Why is this “lame”? It makes complete sense. Trying to send unarmed slow ships to land on the shores of an enemy island with complete local air superiority is suicide.
KH explained: A fighter can scramble to join a battle or against an amphibious assault. It cannot scramble against ships that are just putting around its waters though. This raises a new question, so I hope Krieghund is reading: If I send transports (only), or even a fleet with warships to assault an island with scramblable (I made up a word!!) units, can I send a fighter into the waters with it, even though that is not really a combat move (but it will be if my opponent scrambles)?
-
The UK not only can’t land it’s units, but it has to endure one round of defensive fire from the scrambled unit(s) before it can retreat. Any units on those transports are lost.
Not so. Since it’s not the transport’s turn, it is not in the battle and can’t move. The scrambled fighter simply prevents the amphibious landing without inflicting any casualties.
KH explained: A fighter can scramble to join a battle or against an amphibious assault. It cannot scramble against ships that are just putting around its waters though. This raises a new question, so I hope Krieghund is reading: If I send transports (only), or even a fleet with warships to assault an island with scramblable (I made up a word!!) units, can I send a fighter into the waters with it, even though that is not really a combat move (but it will be if my opponent scrambles)?
Yes. Just the chance of combat is enough to justify the move.
-
The UK not only can’t land it’s units, but it has to endure one round of defensive fire from the scrambled unit(s) before it can retreat. Any units on those transports are lost.
Not so. Since it’s not the transport’s turn, it is not in the battle and can’t move. The scrambled fighter simply prevents the amphibious landing without inflicting any casualties.
KH explained: A fighter can scramble to join a battle or against an amphibious assault. It cannot scramble against ships that are just putting around its waters though. This raises a new question, so I hope Krieghund is reading: If I send transports (only), or even a fleet with warships to assault an island with scramblable (I made up a word!!) units, can I send a fighter into the waters with it, even though that is not really a combat move (but it will be if my opponent scrambles)?
Yes. Just the chance of combat is enough to justify the move.
UK units on a US transport. Missed that. My bad.