Question About Transports

Naval strategy and wise economic moves are both critical in waging this far-flung war across an entire hemisphere. To the familiar elements from Axis & Allies, Axis & Allies: Pacific adds convoys, island air and naval bases, kamikazes, destroyers, and the Chinese army.
User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed May 04, 2005 7:35 am

GROGnads, in the example, the transport moves in combat movement out of the sub-stalled sea zone into a "clear" one to pick up the troops, then moves back into the sub-stalled zone to unload them. It is assumed that combat units also move into the zone with the tranport to deal with the sub so that the unloading can occur after the battle.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

GROGnads
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, WA state USA

uh huh

Post by GROGnads » Wed May 04, 2005 10:10 pm

Well, taking this to the NEXT 'level', let's 'say' that YOU wished to USE that particular 'Transport'(in the 'S.Z.' with the ''Enemy'') for ''Non COMBAT'' movement of Troops. Since it is NOT going to 'do' anything until such time, then it would seem that just because it WAS in the ''same Sea Zone'' as a 'Naval COMBAT' that had just occurred, then it is 'guilty by association' in this case! Which means that it would NOT be able to perform any 'Non COMBAT' moves. So sorry about that, eh? Of course, I have now just opened UP an entirely 'nother ''can of worms'' with this- heh heh!

My 'suggestion' to alleviate this 'situation'~allow a 'Move' out of the 'Sea Zone' DURING ''Combat Moves'' and place the 'Transport' on its SIDE to indicate that is has ONLY '1'-Move left to perform ANY 'Transportation' ability during ''Non COMBAT'' movement. Now, I don't SAY to ''move it '2' spaces'', but you could have it MOVE an additional 'one' once ''Non COMBAT'' movement is going on, okay?

I have STILL not 'heard' if where these 'Troops' are GOING 'to' actually LAND upon is of the 'Amphib Assault' kind OR just plain 'Transfer & Transport' from one 'friendly area to another' for their 'destination'!

Also, 'Transport' has to be THE 'Bestest' or 'Fastest' means of shipping certain Troops since THEY are able to:
1)-Embark ONTO a 'Transport'
2)-Move WITH the 'Transport'
3)-Debark FROM the 'Transport
and ALL of which is conducted in just 'one' TURN~as long as ALL 'involved' are of the SAME 'Nationality'!~for the majority of the 'cases', although there are certain times WHEN this does not 'happen', for whatever reason.
"You had to 'GO'!?! Now we ALL have to 'GO'!" BIG Joe-"Kelly's Heroes"-the MOVIE

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed May 04, 2005 10:46 pm

Well, taking this to the NEXT 'level', let's 'say' that YOU wished to USE that particular 'Transport'(in the 'S.Z.' with the ''Enemy'') for ''Non COMBAT'' movement of Troops. Since it is NOT going to 'do' anything until such time, then it would seem that just because it WAS in the ''same Sea Zone'' as a 'Naval COMBAT' that had just occurred, then it is 'guilty by association' in this case! Which means that it would NOT be able to perform any 'Non COMBAT' moves. So sorry about that, eh? Of course, I have now just opened UP an entirely 'nother ''can of worms'' with this- heh heh!
Yes, this is the unhappy lot of a sub-stalled transport.
I have STILL not 'heard' if where these 'Troops' are GOING 'to' actually LAND upon is of the 'Amphib Assault' kind OR just plain 'Transfer & Transport' from one 'friendly area to another' for their 'destination'!
We can assume that the movement in question is to a friendly territory, and not an amphibious assault, since it was to occur in non-combat movement. If it were an amphibious assault, there would be no question of legality, since all the action would occur in combat movement.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

GROGnads
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, WA state USA

how about the 'solution' that I arrived at?

Post by GROGnads » Wed May 04, 2005 11:58 pm

So what did you 'think' about this? I mean, then it'd be ONE 'way' to denote a temporary situation and just put the 'Transport' UPRIGHT once it's concluded its entire MOVES for the current TURN. Also, I was quite 'aware' that you wanted to 'Friendly Move' BUT it would BE as you've further described, since it wasn't indicated IF these Troops were 'Amphib Assaulting'(legal) or just 'Moving' by Transport(non-legal). Seeings as to HOW they've managed to lump ALL into 'one' Ruling, then things like THIS can and will occur and WE-the unsung, unbeknowst, unpaid 'ones' get to figure this out for ourselves and MAKE up what is BETTER!
P.S.~I'm sure that 'some' might SAY that they'd LIKE to ''not be committed'' in some direction or another until AFTER the 'Naval Battle' is concluded, and there are '2' choices for this:
either ALLOW them, or do NOT permit them a 'Choice'!
Treat it as a sort of ''RETREAT before Combat'' and it's better than NOTHING!
"You had to 'GO'!?! Now we ALL have to 'GO'!" BIG Joe-"Kelly's Heroes"-the MOVIE

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Thu May 05, 2005 8:33 am

Hmmm, GROGnads, I guess that would be an OK house rule to "soften" the impact of sub-stalling. You still would have the penalty of not getting to use the extra movement of naval bases in non-combat move.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Thu May 05, 2005 8:37 am

Larry, one further thought. By making the loading/unloading of transports tied to the movement of the cargo, you allow for the situation of a transport non-combat moving to a territory and having the current cargo move off the transport while new cargo moves on simulataneously if you want to switch the units on the transport. If you don't want to allow a transport to load and unload at the same time, you may want to explicitly disallow this.

I haven't had a chance to review the rules completely yet to see if there are other issues. Am I still on the right track with this stuff?
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Thu May 05, 2005 10:43 am

Krieghund – Grognads
You bring up good questions. I think I’m only getting about half of what you are talking about. This confusion probably stems from the sub-stall situation. I’m not sure what game rules you are referring to as relates to sub-stall . Subsequently I’m not sure what restrictions are being applied to the transports movement and loading/unloading ability. Please clarify this point.
Have pity on me and my inability to get my mind around what the hell you are talking about.

I do feel that the cargo is separate from the transport – as relates to movement.

If a ship has no restrictions, due to combat or leaving a combat situations, why could it not be able to load and unload from the same territory?

GROGnads
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, WA state USA

SUBS are MUCH more then huh?

Post by GROGnads » Thu May 05, 2005 9:48 pm

It is certainly becoming more evident that these 'lowly SUBS' are getting 'accreditted' with even GREATER 'methods', huh?
Let's review, with just '1' SUB present, they PREVENT:
''Off-shore Bombardment''
''An avoidance for Commitment of ALL Naval assets within the SAME 'S.Z.' against them''
''Certain Unit 'types' to Combat them''~depending upon the 'Game'
''The ablity to utilize a 'Transport' to its utmost''~to include any 'NAVAL Bases' present
...hmmm, sounds to ME that they are quite the 'bargain' then, eh?

Sure, even any OTHER 'Naval Vessel' would provide a few of these 'benefits', but not ALL of what I have mentioned-PLUS the 'usual' ones for the SUBS!

Has anyone even 'bothered' to take into account of allowing the SUBS to inflict ''I.P.C. losses'' as since they were primarily 'concerned' with doing just THAT?!?

''Happy 'Cinco de Mayo' to whomever and DEATH to 'Imperialistic FRENCH dreams' over their Latin American brethren!''
''Same for you too, SPAIN!''
"You had to 'GO'!?! Now we ALL have to 'GO'!" BIG Joe-"Kelly's Heroes"-the MOVIE

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest