Carriers attacking transports to retreat, can they?

@WILD:

@Wilson2:

No, I have asked that question before. The carrier cannot kill the transport. Because of this, I wondered if you could use the transport to speed move your ships.

A carrier can attack a convoy zone by itself and cost the enemy 1 ipc if they don’t kill it right. So whats wrong with it taking out a transport. I can see good arguments on both sides. It has no attack value, but it is still a war ship (and common sense would tell you it would be able to).

Ok, so Krieghund has ruled on this already in another post? As I said before I can live with it either way.

Perhaps it’s an issue of realism. In ASL the german tanks have a nifty close defence defence weapon against infantry. The rules don’t allow it to be used offensively because, as powerful as it is, no tank commander would ever intentionally drive into a group of armed enemy infantry and try a shot with this thing.  Similarly, no naval commander would ever send unescorted fleet carriers with no planes to harass transport ship even though the carrier would be more powerful.  The damage they may take is not worth the risk. Carriers take years to build, so they stay at the back.

It does make sense though that a Carrier would disrupt shipping though.  While a carrier would not risk damage by closing in an transports alone, the reverse is even more true. No freighter captain is not going to try to race by a carrier even if he knew it was devoid of planes.  They still have big defensive guns.

@Wilson2:

That carriers cannot kill transports is in the AAP40 FAQ. However, it also says that Carriers can attack “Q. Aircraft carriers have an attack vaIue of zero. Does this mean that they can’t attack other units and can only be used defensively in battles?
A. No. They can participate in an attack and take hits just like any other warship. They just don’t get an attack roll.”
So I would take this to mean that they may attack transports and nothing happens. Then they may or even may have to retreat.

Rules lawyer strategy. Interesting, if not frustrating, lol.  I still call shenannigans on this sleaze tactic!!  Don’t make me get the broom!!!  Is that South Park reference to old?  :evil:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

@moralecheck:

Perhaps it’s an issue of realism. In ASL the german tanks have a nifty close defence defence weapon against infantry. The rules don’t allow it to be used offensively because, as powerful as it is, no tank commander would ever intentionally drive into a group of armed enemy infantry and try a shot with this thing.  Similarly, no naval commander would ever send unescorted fleet carriers with no planes to harass transport ship even though the carrier would be more powerful.  The damage they may take is not worth the risk. Carriers take years to build, so they stay at the back.

It does make sense though that a Carrier would disrupt shipping though.  While a carrier would not risk damage by closing in an transports alone, the reverse is even more true. No freighter captain is not going to try to race by a carrier even if he knew it was devoid of planes.  They still have big defensive guns.

Excellent point, Moralecheck.  Convoys aren’t attacked, they’re disrupted.  Convoy disruption is not the same as attacking military transports.  Even if the (unescorted) convoy merchant ships can’t be attacked by a lone carrier, they’re certainly going to stear clear of it, disrupting the flow of supplies.

@moralecheck:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

Again, excellent point.  This is something that we’re taking our time with before issuing an official answer, as we want to make sure all of the angles are covered.  An FAQ amendment will probably result.

@Wilson2:

@moralecheck:

@Wilson2:

That carriers cannot kill transports is in the AAP40 FAQ. However, it also says that Carriers can attack “Q. Aircraft carriers have an attack vaIue of zero. Does this mean that they can’t attack other units and can only be used defensively in battles?
A. No. They can participate in an attack and take hits just like any other warship. They just don’t get an attack roll.”
So I would take this to mean that they may attack transports and nothing happens. Then they may or even may have to retreat.

Rules lawyer strategy. Interesting, if not frustrating, lol.  I still call shenannigans on this sleaze tactic!!  Don’t make me get the broom!!!  Is that South Park reference to old?  :evil:

Also the word “participate” is subject to interpretation.  I would seem to imply something else needs to be there as well.

Note the words “just like any other warship.” Any other warship can attack all by themselves and can attack transports all by themselves. Sure the carriers can’t kill the transports but they should be able to attack them.

Respectfully disagree.  There is no attack.  It is simply an attempt to bend the rules in your favour.  This is like guys in online Halo who claim that getting inside a tree trunk and shooting with impunity is a fair tactic because the programmers missed the bug.   I’m sure this hole in the rules was not meant to give carriers warp drive.

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.

@BadSpeller:

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:

One can not pick and choose the retreat rules to fit their liking. The rules say units must retreat to the same space, even though they came from multiple sides.

@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 sz19

usa 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 sz19

can 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 bythemselves?

@BadSpeller:

One can not pick and choose the retreat rules to fit their liking. The rules say units must retreat to the same space, even though they came from multiple sides.

Agreed. But having 2 carriers “pretend attack” from 2 different spaces just so they can both retreat to one is an abuse of the rules, IHMO.  There is no chance of a fight, so it doesn’t really seem to qualify for a retreat.

@allweneedislove:

@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 sz19

usa 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 sz19

can 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.

@moralecheck:

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.

i think your logic is sound. we just need krieghund to put something in the errata that says carriers can not attack without another warship or aircraft present. or just have this strange scenario where carriers can get the bonus of retreating without the risk of taking damage.

I hope this loop hole is closed. I don’t think you should get a bonus movement point for setting up a bogus attack that you have no intention of preforming. I can see why Krieghund is taking his time in giving an answer. It was clarifying that a lone carrier can’t sink a tpt that led to this loop hole (if indeed it is) in the first place.

perhaps the carriers can ram the transports and take a damage marker.

Thank God for AA50.

@Battling:

perhaps the carriers can ram the transports and take a damage marker.

Thank God for AA50.

That was awesome. If carriers still had their attack at 1, like in AA50,  this wouldn’t have come up.

Sure it would have, eventually.  The same situation exists for transports.

It has been decided that attacks using only units with no attack value are illegal.  In order to attack, there must be at least one unit with an attack value.  This will be added to the AAP40 FAQ relatively soon.

@Krieghund:

Sure it would have, eventually.  The same situation exists for transports.

It has been decided that attacks using only units with no attack value are illegal.  In order to attack, there must be at least one unit with an attack value.  This will be added to the AAP40 FAQ relatively soon.

I agree with this. One could never roll a ‘zero’ even if you roll a dice a gazillion times. I think ‘attack value’ in this case would be the ability to inflict a hit (even if theoretically), and anything that ‘attacks’ on a 0 cannot inflict a hit, so it’s not a combat.

The thought that a carrier cant sink a transport seems silly but I’m not sure if they had more than aa capability. I thought Essex class CVs had a couple of 5inch mounts.

@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.