I have been playing this game starting with the original for about 16 years now :-(. I dig it :-D I have a question. In our current game, I am the Axis (GER and JAP) my opponent is the Allies (US, UK and RUS). He attacked the Baltic with a sea battle first and announced an amphibious assault on my beloved GER if it cleared. I had 2 sub squadrons and a fully loaded Carrier in place in the Baltic, I announced my subs would surface for surprise attack defense. He took all but one sub. We researched under the Errdata and FAQ’s to find that he could not do his amphibious assault because of the presence of a sub squadron on the surface.
I have looked everywhere and my question is this: Does his assault force remain in the water with all loaded transports, can it retreat if so to what location.
If the battle got to the point the attacker say a destroyer and you had 2 subs, he missed any you hit twice. The attacker would lose his destroyer but would also have to remove 1 transport but the rest could retreat to any seazone any of the attackers came from. Always a good idea to enter from as many sea zones as possible to give you different retreat routes.
1. Your subs do not “surface for surprise attack defense”. They just don’t submerge in the first place.
2. There is no errata/faq that I know of for Spring 1942. In the case of the amphibious assault, apparently your opponent engaged in naval combat and failed to destroy one of your subs. At that point, your opponent retreated because the naval battle had not yet been won. The “presence of a sub squadron on the surface” makes no difference, as attackers can ignore subs and transports when moving into and/or amphibiously assaulting. Specifically, your opponent was forced to conduct a naval battle before offloading transports because of the presence of a carrier, and failed to remove all defenders (removal either by destroying them or having you decide to submerge subs); it is for this reason that your opponent could not offload transports.
The rulebook is poorly worded, but here is the sum of the situation. Suppose on the final round of combat your opponent was attacking with two fighters and a cruiser, plus say four loaded transports, and that you were defending with two subs.
The fighters would not be able to hit the subs because there was no destroyer attacking. Suppose the subs did NOT submerge, and that the subs got two hits. That would mean the attacker would lose the cruiser and a transport. (Transports are only removed as casualties when no other casualties can be removed, but they DO count as casualties).
On the next possible round of combat, the attacker would have two fighters (which couldn’t hit anything) and three loaded transports, and the defender would have two subs. The fighters wouldn’t be able to hit anything, and the subs could kill the transports. Since continuing to the next possible round of combat would only allow the attacker’s transports to be destroyed, there would be no point in the attacker even continuing to the next possible round of combat. So the attacker, on losing the cruiser, should immediately end combat and retreat attacking forces, and should NOT proceed to the next possible round of combat. That is, the combat would end with the attacker having two fighters and three transports, the defender having two subs, and the attacker retreating.
If the transports came from an adjacent sea zone, retreating is clear enough. The transports cannot unload because the only units that can move in noncombat that had also moved in combat are air, and transports and their carried units are naval/ground, so do not qualify. So the transports move to an adjacent sea zone carrying cargo.
–
In case Krieghund comes in on this, here’s a question - what happens if the attacker couldn’t retreat to a legal adjacent sea zone? That is, suppose UK built a cruiser and two transports in the sea zone between London and Paris on UK’s turn. Then suppose Germany moved some subs to that sea zone on Germany’s turn (but submerged), then UK picked up and dropped off from London to Paris. In that case, UK attacked, but didn’t move attacking units, so then the attacker couldn’t “retreat to an adjacent sea zone that one of the attackers had come from” because the attackers didn’t move at all. Would that mean UK could NOT retreat in such a case?
I have a follow up question :-D
Does the presence of a defending subs in a seazone, from where an amphibious assault will take place, cancel the bombardment for cruisers and battleships?
(Even though the sub submerges?)
Only if the attacker declared an attack on the subs, then they submerge would the shore bombardment be canceled, that would be silly and pointless on the part of the attacker If the attacker merely declared an amphibious assault the defender could not nothing to force a fight and cancel the amphibious assault, same as if enemy transports were present.
@Bunnies:
There is no errata/faq that I know of for Spring 1942.
It can be found here.
@Bunnies:
In case Krieghund comes in on this, here’s a question - what happens if the attacker couldn’t retreat to a legal adjacent sea zone? That is, suppose UK built a cruiser and two transports in the sea zone between London and Paris on UK’s turn. Then suppose Germany moved some subs to that sea zone on Germany’s turn (but submerged), then UK picked up and dropped off from London to Paris. In that case, UK attacked, but didn’t move attacking units, so then the attacker couldn’t “retreat to an adjacent sea zone that one of the attackers had come from” because the attackers didn’t move at all. Would that mean UK could NOT retreat in such a case?
Yes, that’s what it means. However, in this case UK could simply ignore the subs and would have no reason to retreat.
In genken’s scenario, if the UK fleet could not retreat the battle would end once the attacker was reduced to only planes and the defender to only subs, and the transports would be automatically destroyed.
