@Stucifer 2176a44d-8289-4f50-a902-39614650fba4-9ba1m8.jpg
WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
One more thing. :) It says when hovering over the territories that if the British capture any chinese therritories they go to UK-Pac, but should really go to China, right?
That’s still in G40. Unnecessary, but doesn’t do any harm.
-
I have some questions about marines on an ally’s ship. It’s relevant to a game I’m playing now.
For these examples, assume I have an ANZAC marine on a US cruiser adjacent to a Japanese territory, and it’s ANZAC’s turn.
-
If the sz is empty, the marine can do a legal amphibious assault.
-
if I have a Japanese sub in the SZ, I assume ANZAC would have to have an accompanying ANZAC warship in order to allow them to ignore the Japanese sub, and do the AA. Correct?
-
If I can scramble into the SZ, then what happens? If there’s no ANZAC warship or plane, then there’s nothing to scramble against, is there, but I still think the marine shouldn’t be able to land because it has nothing there to defeat my potential scramble, correct? Would they still have the option to try to do the AA just to force me to scramble a plane to negate it? Or is an AA not legal without an ANZAC warship or plane present to defeat the potential scramble?
-
defending sub + scramble option: ANZAC would need it’s own surface warship (to be able to ignore the sub & defend against the scramble, if I chose to scramble), or a sub (ignore the sub and avoid potential scrambling). But if ANZAC only brings in planes, then it can’t ignore the sub, and a combat move AA isn’t legal.
-
Now what happens if it’s a kamikaze sz? Technically I can’t use the kami because it’s ANZAC’s turn, not the US, so technically the US cruiser isn’t eligible for a kami. So can the marine land, if there’s no defensive sub, no scramble option, and no ANZAC warship or plane?
-
-
@freh all this is different of course if you were talking about an anzac cruiser.
Also, if there are any anzac units in the sea zone (dds, cruisers, ftrs, etc) then they are subject to being engaged by scrambles or kamikazes but that wouldnt affect the marine/cruiser.
-
@ksmckay correct. In the combat phase of ANZAC’s turn, the Kamikazes can be used against any ANZAC warships that were moved into the sea zone in connection with the amphibious attack.
-
@regularkid This creates a weird result IMO, where an attacking cruiser & marine from the same power could be subject to a kamikaze attack, but an ally’s cruiser in the sz, with a marine on board, wouldn’t be. It’s offers a weird way to get around kamikazes if you’re, say, the UK: you could load marines on US cruisers or BBs, and then they could move in kamikaze SZs on non-combat, and then the marines could off-load on their turn and there’d be no risk of kamikaze against the cruiser.
Although, I guess it isn’t too different from a plane riding along on an ally’s carrier to extend its range.
-
@freh correct. Because the game is turn based, ‘multinational force’ problem can of course lead to some anomalous outcomes. But it’s a necessary evil (unless we simply ban units from boarding the ships of other nations. Which isn’t much fun).
In the case of kamikazes there are basically three possible rules:
-
The marine can’t amphibious assault off a friendly cruiser in a kamikaze zone if japan has any kamikazes remaining.
-
The amphibious assault can take place but the friendly cruiser is subject to kamikaze attack.
-
The amphibious assault can take place and the friendly cruiser is immune to kamikaze attack. (The actual rule).
The first rule allows japan to essentially foreclose the possibility of a multinational marine landing by retaining a single kamikaze. This is a bit gamey in its own right. And, generally speaking, we want to craft rules that encourage (not forbid) engagement.
The second rule is impracticable to code in TripleA and would require player enforcement (rolling the kamikazes out-of-game, editing the results, and keeping track of how many kamis were used). The ‘logical consistency’ benefit would, IMO, be outweighed by the hassle of implementation.
The third rule is easy to follow, is already enforced by the game engine, and is no more arbitrary than many of the other rules having to do with multinational engagement.
One more consideration that mitigates in favor of the current rule. In order for a cruiser to be in a position to unload a friendly marine on another player’s combat turn, the sz would obviously need be cleared of any enemy surface warships on the first player’s turn, at which point the kamikazes could be deployed against it. In other words, the Japanese player is not left without recourse.
-
-
@freh On your point 3, if there is a scramble the sea battle must be won (or tied) for the amphibious assault to proceed. If it is lost, the amphibious assault cannot proceed. If there is no sea battle, the amphibious assault proceeds.
-
@simon33 I see your point, and understand your logic, and this is why I’m looking for ad official a ruling as I can get, which is what I believe we got earlier in the other thread (at one point this discussion was in the BM thread and then here in the PtV thread).
-
@freh said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
@simon33 I see your point, and understand your logic, and this is why I’m looking for ad official a ruling as I can get, which is what I believe we got earlier in the other thread (at one point this discussion was in the BM thread and then here in the PtV thread).
Krieghund has said it.
-
@simon33 so in my situation 3 above, are you saying that there would or wouldn’t be a sea battle?
-
@freh said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
@simon33 so in my situation 3 above, are you saying that there would or wouldn’t be a sea battle?
Attacker has the option of attempting the assault. If the defender chooses not to scramble (e.g. because they want to scramble somewhere else), the assault proceeds.
If there is a defending sub and only an attacking CV, if the scramble happens, the sub keeps defending against the CV until it sinks it, assuming the defender doesn’t foolishly submerge.
Is it clear now?
-
@simon33 yep. Thanks!
-
I have a doubt … can only one transport (without surface ships) be defended by a CV in an adjacent zone? Triple A asks for the scramble but in the rules it seems to me that it refers to a present warship …
-
@Avner It cannot, transports aren’t warships.
-
thanks.
So even if the program calls the scramble it should not be considered (also applies to ground units … I checked). -
@Avner There’s no ground unit that would not allow a scramble if it’s in the territory being attacked, even AA guns.
-
@Adam514
I meant that I gave it a try.
even in the absence of land units,
for example on an island, tripleA calls a CV scramble on a nearby SZI don’t know if that’s correct, with respect to the rules
-
@Avner Cannot scramble to empty territories, but even if you misclick and do scramble, it wouldn’t actually result in a battle.
-
@Adam514 roger ;)
-
@ArmedAce said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Is Afghanistan supposed to be not connected with central India? It looks like it should be, but I tried moving units between the two areas and it did not work. Perhaps a bug?
Seems to be.
Reposting in the rules thread.
Suggested Topics
