Submarine retreat

@Panther

:+1:

@krieghund

Thank you!

@Cernel said in Submarines v. anything that isn't a destroyer:

Here it is an example of the second case:
You have 1 submarine and 1 destroyer attacking 1 submarine alone. The attacking submarine hits.

Excellent example, indeed!

In Revised, the defending submarine fires back.

Correct. As by the rules "Both attacking and defending submarines fire in this [Opening Fire] step. If submarines are present on both sides, they are considered to fire simultaneously. "
The attacking destroyer does not affect the defending sub’s Sneak Attack ability.

In Global, the defending submarine doesn’t fire back.

Correct as the attacking destroyer cancels the defending submarine’s Surprise Strike ability.

@ShadowHAwk:

@P@nther:

If in a sea combat the defending submarine survives and destroys the attacking destroyer the transport may not unload, because the attacker failed to clear the seazone from enemy units. The attacker would most likely retreat his transport, then.

HTH :-)

Actualy if there was a sea combat it would continue untill there is only 1 side left in the combat.

You cannot ignore the sub halfway through the combat, you either ignore it or you dont. So in your example the transport MUST retreat or be sunk and therefore can never be near the intended landing zone. Unless the sub player submerges but why would anyone ever do that.

Sure, I did not say anything else. This situation is not a situation about ignoring submarines, after the first round of combat is over and the attacking destroyer has been destroyed. I talked about retreating, not about ignoring, then.

This situation is a situation where the attacker decides to retreat or not, following the retreat rules.
Most likely the attacker (transport) would retreat, for the reason you described.

No, subs cannot pass through straits if their side doesn’t own it.

except:
Subs can always pass through Gibraltar
Allied ships can pass through Denmark, if permission granted by axis (which never happens)
Nothing goes through the Turkish straits if Turkey is neutral

@ShadowHAwk:

@barney:

So a solution to the KJF only allied way to win would be ?
Seems like Japan would have to be weakened and possibly the US as well?

Maby change the turn order so the game becomes more balanced.

How about.
Germany, USSR, Italy, UK, Anzac, US, Japan, China, France.

This makes a decent game in the med because Italy actualy keeps its fleet.
UK-pac gets 1 more turn buys effectively and a battleship.
Anzac fleet is grouped.
US fleet can group.

So less easy targets, India has 1 turn extra buys so harder to get from japan. Same for the anzac.

At least J1 will be less predictable, UK1 will be less predictable and it gives the allies the initiative in the pacific.

While this completely cripples Japan it makes the European Axis absolute monsters. Don’t see how the axis would ever loose. UK looses his fleet off Egypt right away and his forces in Alexandria. Italy takes Egypt T2 100% and then what do the allies do?

Ya, you are more able to invest money into Europe as US, but could you stop a monster Italy/Germany?

One big thing I’d like to note is that I really don’t like that Anzac can can open for US. This is way too powerful.

the aircraft are committed to the first round of combat…they can retreat if they survive.
You are allowed to send air units into a sea zone that fighters may be scrambled.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Actually, they will die. The procedure for aircraft retreat is different from sea or land retreat: the air units break off and land anywhere withing their remaining range. Since the plane had zero movement points left, it dies if you retreat

Correct.