Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move

[Didier_de_Dax]

Hey @Trig,

At first, thank you for your detailed answer and for taking the time to do it.

The problem with the video of GHG that you have posted is that: “the video is rather bad”, as you said earlier on the topic. So it’s not very clear and there is some errors (we can see this in the commentary section).

The FAQ thread link doesn’t help me to answer the questions I still have, so here it is:

I understand that orders maters and that all units attacking in different combats don’t move at the same time.
If I understand it well, for example: a japan fleet attacks an FEC navy (near Australia) by passing thought an ANZAC navy, it create a state of war between the two opponents when the Japanese fleet is in the same sea zone as the FEC (because Japan did not tell is intention before). And after that, the Japanese player also announces that he will conduct a land battle against FEC in Burma. The combats are then resolves in the order of the attacking player (Japan here).
But if the Japanese player announces the land combat in Burma (creating a state of war between the two opponents) before announcing the naval battle with the FEC. Then, the naval battle with FEC is stopped by the ANZAC navy and the naval battle between Japan and ANZAC takes places instead of the one with FEC.

Or maybe the screening force rules could be use there? One part of the Japan fleet fight with the ANZAC and the other part fight with the FEC? Even if there isn’t naval invasion occurring.
(I think that the screening forces rules didn’t happen there, but I prefer to make sure, so I ask).

Then, you say that the player should announce what is he doing with his fleet, each time that he enter a new sea zone right? (not at the beginning of the move).
So, during the combat move phase, the attacking player move his fleet on the same sea zone as his opponent, he announce that he will conduct a blockade (for example) on an enemy naval base in another sea zone (the naval base should be controlled by a nation which the attacking player is already at war before the start of the movement or he could also be a naval base controlled by the player who will defend against the attacking fleet?).
After that, his move continue and when he enters in the sea zone where the attacker wants to fight the enemy fleet, the war is declare.

But this only works if there is a trade route to raid, to escort, or a naval base to blockade in a sea zone within the range of the navy, right? Or not necessarily?

Let’s take a concrete example to understand my question better: (I will try to upload an image of this situation to make it more clear).
The Japanese player wants to attack a US destroyer in sea zone 42 with its destroyer that are in sea zone 56 (bay of Tokyo, so they benefits from the +1 naval movement of the major port in the sea zone). US and Japan are not already at war.
So, during the combat phase, he intended to pass by the sea zone 39, 40 that contains two US destroyers and 41, before finally entering in sea zone 42 at fight the US destroyer that is alone and so declares war.

In order to pass the two destroyers that are in sea zone 40 without fighting, he has to pretend that he will raid, escort on a naval route or blockade a naval base. The problem is that there isn’t such trade routes or naval facilities within the range of the two Japanese destroyers when they enter sea zone 40. So are the Japanese destroyers still able to continue their movement? Even if they can’t pretend to raid, escort in a sea route or blockade a naval base to within the range of these boats.

“6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order ».

This rule is useful when there is a city that could be encircled before attacking it. The attacking player choose to resolve the combat that allows a city to be encircled first, then the attacking player resolves the combat against the city that is now encircled (because there isn’t airbase or naval base undamaged there), so the malus of encirclement applies to the defender in the city, right?

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

Just got back from a week long vacation and am very interested in this thread. Will respond in the morning after some sleep!

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@didier_de_dax said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

Hey @Trig,

At first, thank you for your detailed answer and for taking the time to do it.

I agree with Trig’s long, detailed post, 4 above this one.

I understand that orders maters and that all units attacking in different combats don’t move at the same time.

Agreed.

If I understand it well, for example: a japan fleet attacks an FEC navy (near Australia) by passing thought an ANZAC navy, it create a state of war between the two opponents when the Japanese fleet is in the same sea zone as the FEC (because Japan did not tell is intention before). And after that, the Japanese player also announces that he will conduct a land battle against FEC in Burma. The combats are then resolves in the order of the attacking player (Japan here).
But if the Japanese player announces the land combat in Burma (creating a state of war between the two opponents) before announcing the naval battle with the FEC. Then, the naval battle with FEC is stopped by the ANZAC navy and the naval battle between Japan and ANZAC takes places instead of the one with FEC.

This is true. You have it correct.

Or maybe the screening force rules could be use there? One part of the Japan fleet fight with the ANZAC and the other part fight with the FEC? Even if there isn’t naval invasion occurring.
(I think that the screening forces rules didn’t happen there, but I prefer to make sure, so I ask).

In the 2nd situation where Japan declared war with the movement into Burma, the Japanese fleet can choose to engage the ANZAC fleet with a screening force and hold the other naval units out to proceed on to engage the FEC fleet if the screening force succeeds against the ANZAC fleet.

Then, you say that the player should announce what is he doing with his fleet, each time that he enter a new sea zone right? (not at the beginning of the move).

Correct.

So, during the combat move phase, the attacking player move his fleet on the same sea zone as his opponent, he announce that he will conduct a blockade (for example) on an enemy naval base in another sea zone (the naval base should be controlled by a nation which the attacking player is already at war before the start of the movement or he could also be a naval base controlled by the player who will defend against the attacking fleet?).

You don’t have to be at war before the start of the movement. You could be at peace and pass through other fleets or a canal, then enter the sea zone where you will blockade. At the moment you enter that last sea zone where you will blockade, the attacker has to announce intent first and that blockade announcement will be a declaration of war.

But this only works if there is a trade route to raid, to escort, or a naval base to blockade in a sea zone within the range of the navy, right? Or not necessarily?

Well, the examples you give do work, but I disagree with your use of “only”. There are other things you could also do. For example, you could attack another naval fleet or do other hostile things like an amphibious invasion. It even works if the defending player has a plane on MAP in that sea zone and the defender could declare war on you!

I think I understand your confusion. You feel like you need permission from the “rules” to be allowed to move a unit during combat movement. That isn’t how I think about it. I think about it as the defending player is giving the attacking player permission to move during combat movement. When you are not a war with a particular potential defending force, you need to move during combat movement if the defending player might declare war on you to prevent your further movement or you might declare war at the end of your movement.

I totally agree that in version 4 of the rules, we should strive for clarity on whether my understanding of the way it should work is correct. In my conceptualization, even if you were just moving through the Suez canal when you are not at war with the Commonwealth, it would happen during the combat movement phase because you would enter sea zone 81 and announce, “I intend to move through the Suez canal into sea zone 82. Do you declare war and stop me?” But this is just how I conceptualize it.

Let’s take a concrete example to understand my question better: (I will try to upload an image of this situation to make it more clear).
The Japanese player wants to attack a US destroyer in sea zone 42 with its destroyer that are in sea zone 56 (bay of Tokyo, so they benefits from the +1 naval movement of the major port in the sea zone). US and Japan are not already at war.
So, during the combat phase, he intended to pass by the sea zone 39, 40 that contains two US destroyers and 41, before finally entering in sea zone 42 at fight the US destroyer that is alone and so declares war.

In order to pass the two destroyers that are in sea zone 40 without fighting, he has to pretend that he will raid, escort on a naval route or blockade a naval base. The problem is that there isn’t such trade routes or naval facilities within the range of the two Japanese destroyers when they enter sea zone 40. So are the Japanese destroyers still able to continue their movement? Even if they can’t pretend to raid, escort in a sea route or blockade a naval base to within the range of these boats.

No, you don’t have to pretend to raid, escort or perform a naval blockade. You make your announcement sea zone by sea zone, as you enter each new sea zone. You enter sea zone 39, but there are no enemy units present and you want to keep moving. Since there are no enemy units present, you don’t need to announce anything because there is nothing the defending player can do to stop you. You then move into sea zone 40 where there are enemy units present. Now, there IS something the defending player can do to interfere with your movement, so your intention becomes important. The attacking player says, “I intend to move to sea zone 41. Do you want to declare war, defending player?” If no DoW by the defending player, then you move into sea zone 41. Again, there are no enemy units in sea zone 41 and there is nothing that can be done to stop you from entering sea zone 42, so it’s not necessary to announce your intention. You enter sea zone 42. Because you are the attacking player, you announce your intention first upon entering sea zone 42, saying, “I declare war on you and attack this destroyer.”

“6.2 also states that a player may resolve the actions during a phase in any order ».

This rule is useful when there is a city that could be encircled before attacking it. The attacking player choose to resolve the combat that allows a city to be encircled first, then the attacking player resolves the combat against the city that is now encircled (because there isn’t airbase or naval base undamaged there), so the malus of encirclement applies to the defender in the city, right?

Correct and an important tactic!

[General 6 Stars]

Huh ? Lost in paradise !

[insaneHoshi]

Ok this is starting to make sense to me now.

I have one last stickler, though. If the British fleet is in SZ 82, and you have to declare your intent when before entering a zone, doesn’t that mean, the italians cant attack the fleet in SZ82. The moment they are entering 82 from 81, they declare their intent and the Suez closes?

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@insanehoshi said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

Ok this is starting to make sense to me now.

I have one last stickler, though. If the British fleet is in SZ 82, and you have to declare your intent when before entering a zone, doesn’t that mean, the italians cant attack the fleet in SZ82. The moment they are entering 82 from 81, they declare their intent and the Suez closes?

Well, if you look at the wording on page 37, Clarifying Ordering Effects, the key phrase is “…when moving into a new zone…” I define this as the fleet has just moved into a new zone, not, as you put it, “…before entering a zone…” So you enter into sea zone 81 and you announce, “I intend to move into sea zone 82, do you want to declare war on me and close the Suez canal?” The Commonwealth is in a precarious position. Should they declare war and prevent you from moving in, but suffering the penalties of declaring war? [Side Note: It’s hard for Great Britain to declare war on Italy if Italy is still neutral. Their National Reference Sheet specifies they can only declare war on Germany, Italy or Japan if those nations have already declared war on another nation.] If Great Britain does not or cannot declare war, then the Italians pass through the canal and are now entering sea zone 82. Upon entering sea zone 82, they now have to announce their intentions. If they announce they intend to attack the British fleet in sea zone 82, then that is a declaration of war by the Italians (but they already passed through the canal).

[Didier_de_Dax]

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

Hey,

First, thank you very much for your answer. I think that it will help a lot of people (and I) who doesn’t understand properly the thing about declaring war and the naval combat associated.
This thing is very complex and by taking a concrete example and describing step by step each actions, you explain it very clearly.

Also, I would like to say that : Unlike GHG in his video “GW36 declaration of Wars” and the recent “Channel update” of the 30th april, you are not bored by answering questions and debating. It should be recognized.

I think that, he is taking these questions too personally. A lot of people have nothing wrong with him and he explains us a lot of good thing.
But, when we are asking questions and advancing arguments he seems angry because we don’t listen to his holy voice. Also, saying “I speak with the game designers a lot, so I’m right and you’re wrong”, isn’t enough to prove that you’re right.

We all make mistakes and the discussions help the game designers to clarifying the rules, in order that they could be more understandable by the majority of players in the futur.
And thats what you put in words when you say : "I totally agree that in version 4 of the rules, we should strive for clarity on whether my understanding of the way it should work is correct. "

Finally, peoples try to justify their explanations of the rules by saying : “It work that way, it’s the spirith of the rules”. Sorry, but how could we know this so called “spirit of the rules” ? we only have the rulebook, some FAQ and errata as ressources. And, there isn’t a “spirit of the rules” categorie on these sheets.
So rather than keep saying “its against the spirith or interpretation of the rules”, it’s better to take the time to explain or if necessary, correct the formulation of the rules, making an errata, etc …

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@didier_de_dax What kind words, my friend! I want you to know that GHG has answered hundreds and hundreds of questions. He is actually a very friendly and helpful person, Didier! 8 ) He has poured probably thousands of hours into Global War and has done so much to advance the game. I am very grateful for all GHG has and continues to do for this game that we both love.

Sometimes we can answer questions definitively. We just quote a rule and there really isn’t any dispute. These are the most straight forward and I have found Trig and Noneshallpass to be tremendous assets here. They really have a deep knowledge of the game.

Sometimes, the rules aren’t as clear as we would like them to be. People are confused by the wording or there are two different sections of the rules that are in conflict. Then we need help from the game designer to provide clarity. I’ve been very impressed with how rapidly the FAQ and rules errata have been updated. Respect! It’s fantastic to have quick response times for these kinds of issues.

And sometimes, the game evolves. A player starts using a new tactic (like the USSR invading South America to get America into the war early), and the game designer needs to respond to take corrective action. I’ve been a rules editor for even more complicated WW2 games than HBG’s Global War '36, and in my experience, it can be disastrous to be overreactive and make changes to the way the game is played without playtesting and a period of contemplation. If you respond with “evolutionary” rules changes too quickly, and then have to modify that change, it gives the playing community whiplash as the rules change this way and that. Morten is very good about taking his time and playtesting with his group before making these kinds of evolutionary changes. I think we should be patient and understanding in these kinds of changes. We want fast responses for the easy stuff and slow, thoughtful responses to complicated/evolutionary issues.

[Didier_de_Dax]

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

I agree with want you say !

I know GHG is doing an important task by answering a thousand of questions, I’m the first to say that he is very helpfull : “he explains us a lot of good thingS” (I should not forget the “s” there).

I was just pointing that his reaction wasn’t appropriate, nor helpfull for the community, when he say that he will no more answer questions because peoples disagree with what he was explaining (some says that the explications wasn’t clear enough and if we compare with your last explanation the last was way more comprehensive and clear).
What kind of childish blackmail is that ? :joy:

Also, my last post is not intended to criticize game designers and their work.
I greatly support your opinion when you say that they need time and playtest. I wasn’t asking for more rapid answers, but more comprehensive and complete explanations.

I think I’m not the only one who prefers a long and detailled clarification about a rule or a concept, rather than an expeditive : “Listen to me, I speak with the game designers, you don’t understand the spirit of the rules” ; “if you disagree with me, you are wrong”.
Come on we can take the time to have a real discussion and understand all the aspects.

Of course I’m not speaking of questions that can be answered quickly, but more complex and particular situations like we had discussed here.

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@didier_de_dax I totally agree. And I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t critical of you, Didier! Online communication is so difficult because people can’t hear tone of voice or see our facial expressions. 8 )

I’m not criticizing the game designers or their work either, my friend. We’re on the same page and this very forum is the perfect place for us to have these discussions.

[Trig]

@didier_de_dax
@HBG-GW-Enthusiast
I completely agree with you both. I have great appreciation for his and other designers work, I just wish that they would lay down the rules more clearly when we ask questions. (for instance, giving us a step by step way to navigate this problem of moving navies. [like the perfectly good way they already have in the rules * cough, cough *{I’m getting sidetracked here}]) Clarity and mutual understanding are the most important parts of this process, and so when we can break down barriers to those, it makes this so much easier.

On the spirit of the rules: I think this is a valid concept, but it needs support, just like any other proof. Examine the whole of the rulebook, and look for overlapping connects. The designer’s notes in particular a good here. It cannot be used as a absolute “this is how it is.” The spirit of the rules to me can be a support, but cannot be your argument.

Sorry for that semi-rant, but is there any more questions on this that I missed?

Thanks for coming in here, @HBG-GW-Enthusiast. You tend to explain things far better than me.

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@trig I appreciate the support, Trig! I think you are more brilliant that I am, and you have the greater, more intricate comprehension of the rules. I need to understand it at a simple level to get it. Then, because I understand it like a child, I can explain it more easily! 8 )

I am taking a break from changing my garbage disposal, otherwise I’d work on a video to explain Clarifying Ordering Effects. Maybe tonight or later this week.

Here’s the scenario I’m thinking about (and I’d like to get your input to make it a better scenario).

1. Japan is neutral, but has attacked a minor power (to allow GB the opportunity to declare war). What minor should it be? I’m thinking of Siam - totally ridiculous, but makes it easy.
2. Japan has moved a submarine through the Suez canal to sea zone 81 on prior moves.
3. Japan has a big navy with transports in Formosa. GB has naval units in sea zones 88 and 87, and a lone transport in sea zone 85.
4. Japan requests to move its submarine through the Suez canal. GB declines to declare war and prevent this.
5. Japan moves its submarine from sea zone 82 to sea zone 83. There are no enemy units so it doesn’t need to announce anything because there’s nothing the defending player can do to stop it after it is through the canal.
6. Japan picks up infantry on transports from Formosa and moves it’s large fleet to sea zone 87, announcing the intention to move to sea zone 122. If GB declares war, Japan won’t be able to make it to Calcutta. GB declines to declare war.
7. Japan doesn’t need to announce anything in sea zone 122 (it’s empty).
8. Japan moves its large fleet from sea zone 122 to sea zone 87. Since Japan is the Attacking player, he has to announce intention upon entering the sea zone and declares war, invoking the Surprise Attack ability, deciding on a screening force with a separate amphibious invasion force against Calcutta.

How can I make the example better for the video? Is there anything I have wrong? This shows that you can use the Surprise Attack, don’t have to declare war at the start of the combat phase, can waltz through enemy fleets (daring them to declare war), and creates amazing dilemmas for the GB player. The system works great!

[Trig]

@hbg-gw-enthusiast

Sorry for the later reply.
I like this! My suggestion would be to have that sub moving through Suez wait to enter 83, and then raid in it. That would show you can seperate moves, and don’t have to do them sequentially.
You should probably also mention scrambling and maybe something with MAP, do cover all the bases. Maybe there is a plane on MAP in 82 or something to do with that in another spot? Just to show how this also applies during wartime moves after the DOW.
Also, what was the point of the transport in 85? I didn’t see where that came up.
Overall, looks good! I would also probably mention some other possibilities, if say, GB does DOW and how that would work with screening forces.
I really like the use of this system for all moves, and will definitely “house rule” it in.

[HBG GW Enthusiast]

@trig said in Can submarines move through enemey channals like the suez Channel in combat move:

@hbg-gw-enthusiast
My suggestion would be to have that sub moving through Suez wait to enter 83, and then raid in it. That would show you can seperate moves, and don’t have to do them sequentially.
Also, what was the point of the transport in 85? I didn’t see where that came up.

I was going to have the Japanese use their Surprise Attack ability to grant that submarine one more movement to go after the transport in 85. Maybe I’ll make the transport in 85 two naked CV’s instead.

You should probably also mention scrambling and maybe something with MAP, do cover all the bases. Maybe there is a plane on MAP in 82 or something to do with that in another spot? Just to show how this also applies during wartime moves after the DOW.
Overall, looks good! I would also probably mention some other possibilities, if say, GB does DOW and how that would work with screening forces.

Great ideas!

I really like the use of this system for all moves, and will definitely “house rule” it in.

I believe in the game designers and hope that with time, this system will be officially adopted! Other than the two GHG videos, this is how I would have thought the rules work as written.