Strategic Warfare Clarifications

[Yoper]

Air Units vs. Subs-
My reading of the rules is that all air combat is done before other combat so that if an air unit, along with other surface naval units, attacks a sub in a sea zone and the air unit hits, the sub is gone before it gets to fire.

With this as a basis, if air units are used in defense of a convoy zone against attacking subs, would not the air units fire first and any subs hit would not get to roll to damage the convoy?

Naval Warfare and Strategic Warfare in the same sea zone-
Please clarify what happens when an attacker chooses to attack a convoy sea zone both ways.  Specifically when the defender chooses to only defend against the strategic attack.

While the rules talk about the two attacks being simultaneous, your one example makes it seem like the attacking surface naval units get to do their damage first on the defending naval units and then the remaining defenders get to roll against the strategic attacker.

To me it would seem that if the atacker chooses to have the two attacks but the defender chooses to only defend one of the attacks, then the one attack (that the defender choose not to defend) would not be made.  Or would have to be done after the other attack (the one that the defender choose to respond to) is dealt with.

Craig

[Mark]

Air Units vs. Subs-
The sequence of combat should be that strategic attacks preceed air to ship combat which preceeds ship to ship combat.

Naval Warfare and Strategic Warfare in the same sea zone-
To be consistent: strategic attacks (and defense if any) is resolved first, then the 'normal' combat in the sea zone.  I think this is a point that was raised by James a while back and this was the resolution.

[Yoper]

As in all types of combat, air-to-air combat is resolved
prior to strategic combat.

Page 24, the sentence directly after the first paragraph in the Strategic Combat section.

This would seem to say that the air units would attack the sub before the sub gets to attack the convoy.

I don't see anywhere else that states that the strategic attack comes before any other naval warfare, including any air actions (air-to-air, anti-air, air-to-sea).

As such, I would think that the air should be resolved before the strategic attack.

I understand (and agree) that when the sub is attacking it should get its strategic attack on the convoy before the defending air gets to respond, but that is not how I see laid out in the rules.

Craig

[Mark]

Agreed.

The above rule I think is right - air to air combat is resolved first.  But naval combat sequence of play needs to be amended to state that strategic combat preceeds air to ship and ship to ship combat - they are not simultanous as currently stated in the strategic rules.

thanks for catching this,
Mark

[Uncle Joe]

Why not let planes go first per the rules?  That is the way we play and it is consistent with everything else.

[Yoper]

A different question on the strategic warfare front.

Are the UK Convoys in the North Atlantic separate entities from the Lend Lease Convoys in the same sea zones?

I just reread a sentence that seems to confirm that and that was the way that we were playing it until last week when another player said it was all one. 

This was relevant from the standpoint of my rolling a strategic attack that totaled over 10PPs.  I would have limited it to 10 but since there was some Lend Lease points in that zone, the UK/USA player said it should count against that too.

I let it fly at the time only because I didn't have the time to look it up (I was playing all of the Axis powers!).

Craig

 

[John D.]

Why not let planes go first per the rules?  That is the way we play and it is consistent with everything else.

Hello Uncle Joe - 2 reasons

1- Mark wanted to reflect that the subs are sneak attacking convoys - they get to shoot at merchant ships before they are detected - THEN they are fair game.

2- If air units fired first and the subs that were hit did not get to do convoy damage - they would not be worth building at all.

Those are the general reasons. I am sure Mark can elaborate on this.

John

[Yoper]

Your answer isn't very clear.

You say that they are separate entities but don't specificly answer my concern.

Does the excess damage done to the UK Convoys affect the Lend Lease Convoys or is the maximum that can be done is 10 PPs?

Would I have to attack the Lend Lease Convoy separately to get after the PPs that are in it?

My interpretation is that you have to attack them separately but I would like a clear answer to present to my group.

Craig

[Mark]

They are all together is what John means by "seperate" 
a u-boat wouldn't know if a transport is ferrying UK purchased stuff or stuff from the UK vs. stuff from the US via lend lease.  so essentially the convoy zones are worth up to 15pp (10 PP + up to five chips worth of US lend lease). The German player does not "choose" what he is shooting at - he just rolls the dice and freighters start sinking.

The US places chips in the convoy zones to represent lend lease point going to the UK - up to 5 in any one zone.  So if a zone has 0 lend lease chips in it - it can get torpedoed for only 10pp.  But if a zone has 5 lend lease chips in it - it can get nailed for up to 15.  If u-boats do 12pp of damage to a 15pp sea zone - the British player can take the 12 from with his own PP first or lend lease - it really doesn't matter since they are really all destined to be his points at the end of the turn anyway.

I'll have to re-read the rules tonight to see where the confusion is.

[John D.]

I deleted my response because Mark's is clearer.

[Yoper]

I don't see anywhere in the rules where there is a clear intention that this is the case.

One of the players in my group has cited the example on pg 24 as proof of your thoughts on the matter.

Craig

[Yoper]

A new question concerning Strategic Warfare.

Situation- A country controls a territory but doesn't have a unit in it, which means they are not receiving the PP for the territory.

Q: Can a territory be strategically bombed even though the defender isn't receiving the PP for it?

Craig

[Mark]

OK, other things that apparently have been taken for granted over the years but are not called out specifically in the rules - I will add these to the next round of edits - so thanks again for catching these 

Answer:  No - if you are not collecting income for the territory (either because it is out of supply or unoccupied) - it can not be reduced by strategic warfare - that would be really unfair.