OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map

GovZ

What i struggle with here is why the landing is allowed if the destroyer is dead by kamikaze. Then it is just a regular sub vs transport and it never goes well

I thought the same thing, but was corrected recently. I think the choice to ignore the sub happens as part of the combat move phase. If the attacker ignores it, the sub doesn’t play a part anywhere during the conduct combat phase. If the attacking destroyer is then kamikazed, its transport vs empty SZ and the landing happens.

And I’m still not used to this new map.

gamerman01

Yeah that’s not quite what I mean

Combat move, I see NOTHING that says you have to declare whether you’re ignoring or not.
Transports can’t be hit by kamikazes, so yes, it doesn’t matter whether the destroyer gets hit by kamikazes

BUT
3) TripleA might be wrong to require decisions about attacking transports and subs first. From all I can see in the rulebook, the attacker does not have to declare whether he’s attacking the subs. As Oysteilo did, you can simply move a destroyer in to escort the transport over the subs. Then you do NOT have to declare whether you are ATTACKING the subs until that battle comes up in the conduct combat phase. This last part is what I don’t remember anyone talking about before.

I suppose I should take it to the Q&A thread.

gamerman01

Great luck that the cruiser hit - nice move

gamerman01

@oysteilo said in OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map:

well, you dont declare wether you attack the sub or not in a regular combat move either?

Right! I’ll ask in the Q&A

You are asked about that when you actually conduct combat, not in the combat move phase.

But at the BEGINNING of the combat phase. I think you may be able to wait until you actually get to that battle because I can’t find a rule that says otherwise.

Then I believe the kamikaze tokens happen before you actually conduct combat and henze it is not asked for (yet) Or?

Kamikazes are declared at beginning of conduct combat phase

What i struggle with here is why the landing is allowed if the destroyer is dead by kamikaze. Then it is just a regular sub vs transport and it never goes well

Kamikazes don’t bring the subs into the battle, only scrambling does.

gamerman01

Wow. Krieghund admits it does not explicitly say in the rulebook.

Now we know - you have to declare whether you’re going to attack the subs, during combat movement. So technically, before my kamikaze decision I was supposed to know whether you were attacking the subs or not.

Of course with 2 subs I wasn’t worried about you attacking the subs, and you didn’t want to attack them. But if there was only 1, it would have mattered.

Interesting! I guess I have to write this down somewhere or I’ll forget the rule next time.

oysteilo

Let me summarize…

I should have declared to attack or not. In this situation obviously no attack and it has no practical consequences since there is no scramble
If i declare not to fight the sub, and survive the kamikaze (or none is chosen) and a scramble is made resulting in a dead destroyer, then the landing is not allowed due to the sub(s)?

(one could also imagine surviving kami, but both destroyer and fighter is dead dring that combat)

Is that the point?

gamerman01

@oysteilo said in OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map:

Let me summarize…

I should have declared to attack or not. In this situation obviously no attack and it has no practical consequences since there is no scramble

I was pretty sure you wouldn’t attack, yes. It didn’t bother me that you didn’t declare in this situation. This situation just made me realize this is a rule that I don’t know, and in another situation it could be important.

If i declare not to fight the sub, and survive the kamikaze (or none is chosen) and a scramble is made resulting in a dead destroyer, then the landing is not allowed due to the sub(s)?

This one’s hard to explain.
If it was a destroyer and transport vs. 2 subs and a scrambled fighter, the scrambled fighter pulls the subs into the battle (they can be ignored in combat movement, not in combat when a fighter scrambles)
Then the transport is in the battle but only gets hit if the defender scores more than 1 hit in a single round. If the destroyer is sunk but the transport survives, the transport would retreat along with its cargo.
To illustrate, let’s say you did attack my subs (no scramble, no kamikaze). If both subs hit at once, the loaded transport is destroyed. If only 1 sub hits, you still have a transport but it will retreat with its cargo.
The sub doesn’t prevent the landing. If I had a fighter and scrambled, and even if I took off the fighter for the first casualty (making it destroyer vs. sub) the sub does not prevent the landing. Subs only prevent landings in combat movement if there is no escort.

(one could also imagine surviving kami, but both destroyer and fighter is dead dring that combat)

Is that the point?

Oh, I think this is what I explained above. (destroyer survives kamikaze, shoots down fighter but a sub still remains)

No, my only point was whether and when the player has to declare he is attacking subs. The rulebook never actually says anything about this, so I wondered if the player could actually wait to decide whether to attack subs (like in this situation) until actually conducting Z6 and Korea activities.

As you saw, Krieghund says the combat movement phase is all about declaring intentions of what to attack or not attack, so that means technically you were supposed to tell me whether you were attacking my subs before I have to decide on kamikazes (kamikazes are at the beginning of the conduct combat phase). Of course I don’t mind at all in this situation - neither of us knew the rule for sure and it didn’t matter because I was fine with you attacking 2 subs.

I knew waiting until conduct combat to decide whether to attack subs felt wrong, but I couldn’t find it in the rulebook!

oysteilo

perfect, thanks for the detailed explenation and answer!

gamerman01

I’m glad if it makes sense -

You’re welcome - and now we can terrorize someone else with the knowledge!

oysteilo

@gamerman01 said in OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map:

I’m glad if it makes sense -

You’re welcome - and now we can terrorize someone else with the knowledge!

the key take home message is to make attacker declear his intentions and then everything pretty much follows smoothly I think.

Its never done like this in triple a so it is hard to follow/easy to go with the triple a flow but its good to have it sorted out

gamerman01

Exactly.

And I guess we can’t terrorize people with this knowledge, but we CAN keep them from accidentally getting an advantage as the attacker.

I just realized it because I had the kamikaze decision and I didn’t know for sure whether you were attacking the subs.
Then I looked it up in the rulebook and it is silent on the issue.

Cool!

oysteilo

based on total unit value I am in deep problems here. I should be up by at least 500 here, but it is only 400 and you have yet to capitalize on the tripple yummy in novgorod… :(

oysteilo

even after 10 years or so “new” situations keep poping up. Thats what I like about this game!

gamerman01

Hey, Leningrad will stand until G4, at LEAST, and that’s all factored in to the 400-500 formula.

Only 2 rounds in and I think I’m starting to adjust to the map

I’m surprised it’s just about 400, but you didn’t foolishly sacrifice a transport to get Normandy back, and that would have been a 60 IPC swing right there.

I’ve got big problems.

gamerman01

Another factor is J1 DOW,
With a J3 DOW I still wouldn’t have Philippines or Malaya or Hong Kong. So you are actually definitely ahead even with just +400 right now

gamerman01

Man, I thought you were going to smoke the guys in North Africa.

Powerful position, though.

gamerman01

And I’m glad you’re investing in techs, not so much because you didn’t get 1, but because it would be a shame to have a tech game with no techs.

oysteilo

@gamerman01 said in OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map:

Man, I thought you were going to smoke the guys in North Africa.

Powerful position, though.

I didnt really consider that, mostly becasue of my fleet. It needs an air base protection

gamerman01

Malta! lol

oysteilo

@gamerman01 said in OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map:

Malta! lol

yeah… i dont like that

OOB Oysteilo +40 v Gamerman01 with tech - UHD map

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L24 PTV MikawaGunichi (X+7) vs Wizmark Game#2

L24 OOB FlyingBadger (Axis) vs Gamerman01 (Allies+44) #2

PTV Daaras (x+12) vs General Disarray

L24 OOB Stucifer (X) v FlyingBadger (L+48)

L24 BM4 fasthard (X) vs Adam514 (L+22)

L24 BM BombsAway (X) v Fasthard (L+21)

G40 OOB 2nd ed Caesar1 (Axis) vs Myygames (Allies +50)

PTV24 Elche V 666 (axis +12)

49

17.4k

39.9k

1.7m