I have a few questions concerning what friendly transports can do during the noncombat movement phase when an enemy submarine is present in a sea zone:
1. Can the transport move through the sea zone occupied by the enemy submarine without being accompanied by a friendly warship?
2. Can the transport load and/or unload friendly land units (either his own or an ally’s) in territories adjacent to the submarine’s sea zone?
Morning Geocal.
Yes to both questions.
2. Can the transport load and/or unload friendly land units (either his own or an ally’s) in territories adjacent to the submarine’s sea zone?
Remember that allied land units can only be loaded/unloaded during the ally’s turn.
Welcome to the forum :-)
Thanks for the clarifications. However, the logic of allowing transports to be immune from enemy submarines during the noncombat movement phase escapes me. Why then does a transport need an accompanying friendly warship when it makes an amphibious assault?
Thanks for the clarifications. However, the logic of allowing transports to be immune from enemy submarines during the noncombat movement phase escapes me. Why then does a transport need an accompanying friendly warship when it makes an amphibious assault?
There is no concept of “immunity”. The concept here is that an enemy submarine does not make a seazone hostile.
As well during combat move phase (CM) as during noncombat move phase (NCM) the transport may enter a seazone that contains an enemy submarine, simply ignoring it.
In case the transport goes there during CM intending to unload for an amphibious assault, it needs to be accompanied by a warship at the end of CM to be allowed to unload.
In case the transport goes there during NCM it can load/unload without “escort”.
During CM the transport unloads into a hostile territory.
During NCM the transport can only load/unload from/into a friendly territory.
HTH :-)
Your reply does not provide a logical reason why an unaccompanied transport can ignore an enemy submarine in one situation but not in another. If the concept is that a submarine does not make a sea zone hostile, why then does the transport need an accompanying warship to perform an amphibious assault?
Your reply does not provide a logical reason why an unaccompanied transport can ignore an enemy submarine in one situation but not in another. If the concept is that a submarine does not make a sea zone hostile, why then does the transport need an accompanying warship to perform an amphibious assault?
I see now what you mean. I pointed out that different scenarios have different rules with different requirements.
But you want to know why this special requirement has been added. As the “escort-rule” has been introduced with the 1940-games.
In case there is another reason than to reflect different scenarios, I am optimistic that Krieghund probably knows more about the background.
There is no reason other than to prevent a hostile action by a non-warship when an enemy sub is present. The rule is there simply to prevent a transport from attacking through a sub without being escorted by a warship. If it’s not attacking, it doesn’t need an escort.
The game rules regarding submarines not making a sea zone hostile do not seem to reflect the realities of what submarines did in WW II. The Allies developed anti-submarine forces and the convoy system to fight the German submarine threat in the Atlantic theater and were, after a time, able to virtually eliminate the submarine threat from this “hostile sea zone”. On the other hand, the Japanese never bothered with anti-submarine forces or the convoy system and, by the end of the war, Allied submarines had essentially run out of targets to sink.
