@Von-Kuulness You are reading the rules correctly.
Your submarine would only have been able to retreat if it had established a valid alternative retreat route during combat movement (in case that had been possible, it depends on the map of course).
Transport clarification
-
@Cmdr:
The rules are very clear as they are now IMO.
Understood. However, we have had many questions pretaining to transport bridging over the years, so it is my opinion that the rule is not clear in this regard. It’s not meant as derogatory for anyone.
I agree all the way with you.
“Bridging” is a non-necessary confusing concept, unless providing special house rule or something about a non-moving TT in a specific sea-zone.As said by Gargantua:
@Gargantua:Ditch the whole concept of “bridging” It literally means NOTHING.
It shouldn’t have been in ANY rule book, it’s a concept that has no meaning, as it is assumed one can unload without moving, or worst case, could simply, move 1 sea zone, and move back.
A transport, loads, moves, and unloads.
If it is loaded on another powers turn, althought it doesn’t techincally move, it can’t move until the transports owners turn, and the move is not to move. Then on the following powers turn, it can unload.
Power A loads, Power B moves and chooses not to move it’s transport, Power A unloads.
IN SHORT - it is tedious and time consuming to use transports that are not your own. So DON’T, with rare exception.Like a house rule allowing 1 extra " INF unit" and no other type drop when in a bridging situation for a TT from the same power.
It can be rationalize: a TT which doesn’t move far away and stay in a sea-zone is able to transfer much more troops.
Ex.: Their is great difference between travelling troops in a narrow English channel sea-zone 110 and between two sea-zone (or 1 sea-zone away in 1942) away cities like moving from sz10 Los Angeles to sz26 Honolulu, Hawaii via sz12.
It could be a way to take account of this physical difference. -
I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat. Is this correct?Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports. -
I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat. Is this correct?Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.You played it right. In any round of combat, all hits must be assigned if there is legal target. So sometimes, even if you attack with transports, they’ll die before you have a chance to retreat if you lose everything in a single round of combat.
-
I have another transport question regarding the “defenseless transports” rule and transports in an attack status:
I know that if transports are defending, once any other warships are sunk and there are attackers left, ALL transports are immediately destroyed.
However, if transports are part of an attack, they are not considered defenseless because they can retreat. So if you have some transports with two warships, let’s say cruisers, and the defender gets 2 hits, then the two cruisers are sunk and the transports can then retreat. However, if the defender were to get 3 or more hits, then some of those transports would also be hit and sunk with the remaining transports being able to retreat. Is this correct?Specific example: Germany attacks Volgograd with 1 cruiser and 1 transport. Russia scrambles 2 fighters to SZ 115. Both fighters score hits. So in this case, both the German cruiser AND the German transport are sunk, right? It wouldn’t be sink the cruiser and the transport retreats. The 2nd Russian fighter hit would be applied to the transport since the 1st Russian fighter hit sank the cruiser.
That’s the way we played it and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Any defending hits in excess of attacking warships can be applied to attacking transports.That’s my understanding as well.
Suggested Topics
