@moralecheck:
@BadSpeller:
Then your ‘warp drive’ thinking would have to apply to all retreating units, land and sea. When units retreat from a tt, inf move 2 spaces, and armor may end up moving 3. This is not about your house rules but the real rules.
Nope. There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want. I thought that was obvious, but I guess this thread shows otherwise. shrugs
And that wasn’t a real house rule either, just a joke. I rarely use house house rules in any game (but will on occasion, I admit). Nothing is more annoying than learning the rules to a game and sitting down to play the first time with some new players who then tell you they have rewritten half the game. Of course, that would still annoy me less than someone who was arguing it was ok to retreat forward after “non-combat combat move”. :lol:
I’m pretty sure the AAR rulebook (and maybe other rulebooks since – I just remember it in AAR because that was the first one I ever read) specifically & explicitly states that players may attack a territory from opposite sides for the sole purpose of being able to retreat all units to one side, effectively allowing a group of infantry (or whatever) to move an extra space – and through enemy territory to boot, so I don’t know why you think Wilson’s suggestion is so outrageous. To disallow it would seem inconsistent in many ways, and to allow it seems most certainly justified by precedent, from how it seems to me: giving a unit an extra move via rendezvous & retreat already exists in the game. If this is not allowed for the CVs in this scenario, it would only be because of the special case of a 0 vs 0 “battle” where no real combat is possible.
The practical differences are these
In the CV vs trn scenario, there is no risk of hits, whereas in other similar scenarios there are. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, when you think about the realism of it.
In the CV scenario, the extra movement does not allow the CV to pass through hostile territory, whereas other similar scenarios do. This difference actually seems to favor the CV scenario as being more realistic than the already-accepted scenarios.
It seems to me that to allow this would be the most intuitive according to the rules, but then again – I haven’t read the latest rules lately.
EDIT
@moralecheck:
@allweneedislove:
@moralecheck:
Nope. There is a big difference between retreating from where you came (essential cancelling your move) and using a retreat at sea to get an extra point in whatever direction you want.
all units can gain an extra movement point by attacking from two different territrory/szs and all units retreating to the same territory/sz.
for example
japan has a 2destroyers in sz6
usa has a carrier in sz26 and a carrier and destroyer in sz19
usa attacks sz6 with all three units then retreats units to sz19
the carrier and destroyer that started in sz26 has made a clever move that allows it to move 4 spaces(just like any navy battle that allows a retreat).
remember carriers are warships and are allowed to participate in attacks and take hits just like all other units. now lets look at my original example
japan has only a transport in sz6
usa has a carrier in sz26 and a a carrier in sz19
can both carriers attack sz6?
if so then the carriers can retreat to sz19. the carrier that started in sz26 has made a clever move that allows it to move 4 spaces(just like any navy battle that allows a retreat) but without risking damage.
kreighund do you have a ruling stating that carriers can not attack without another type of warship involved in the attack? or a ruling that carriers can attack by themselves?
I will concede on the movement issue. I have been convinced by you and BadSpelling. I still think setting up a non-fight for a fake retreat is not on the level though. There is not much we can do but await a ruling. I don’t think another warship should be required for a carrier to engage, aircraft are fine too.
Oops, I didn’t see the third page.! Sorry to beat a dead horse!