Well, they did avoid big naval battles in WWI (well, for 2 years until Jutland and then after that) simply because it was risky. Having a “Fleet in Being” was far too valuable.
From Larry’s Imperial Russia post:
“New sea units can be placed in any sea zone that shares a naval base symbol with a territory that you originally controlled. New units can enter play even in a contested territory or hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase will be long past.”
I read this as follows:
contested territory = land territory with a naval base that has enemy units present (and thus is contested) but where new naval units can still be placed in the adjacent sea zone (note Larry doesn’t say contested sea zone).
hostile sea zone = sea zone adjacent to a land territory with a naval base that is occupied by enemy naval units but where new naval units can still be placed (as in previous versions of A&A).
With the usual caveat that I may be wrong, I can’t recall Larry saying anything about a contested sea zone, but I will search the reports.
Well, they did avoid big naval battles in WWI (well, for 2 years until Jutland and then after that) simply because it was risky. Having a “Fleet in Being” was far too valuable.
True, but Germany did risk the High Seas Fleet at Jutland. And the only reason they did so was because they knew that if it got too hot they could scuttle back into home port and make repairs.
If the game makes a badly mauled attacking fleet stay in hostile waters then we’re back to the “sitting duck” status of fleets in WWII versions - it’s an even bigger risk than it was historically. We’ve gone from one extreme to the other.
My solution would be:
Allow the attacking fleet to retreat back where it came from, but allow the enemy fleet to pursue. Then that side has to consider risking the mines to finish off the wounded foe. A pursuing fleet cannot retreat, but of course it gets it’s next turn before the rival navy plays again.
Perhaps a fleet in a contested SZ which contains its own home NB can be considered blockaded; it cannot sail out of the SZ until it has destroyed or driven off the contesting ships.
I’m assuming here that, under normal circumstances, a fleet in an already contested SZ can sail away without engaging the enemy.
That is not my interpretation. I believe the map has been so designed that only one NB is adjacent to any given SZ, therefore you cannot build navy into a SZ adjacent to an enemy NB, therefore a hostile SZ must be one containing enemy ships, therefore since there is no combat after such a placement the SZ itself becomes contested.
From Larry’s Imperial Russia post:
“New sea units can be placed in any sea zone that shares a naval base symbol with a territory that you originally controlled. New units can enter play even in a contested territory or hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase will be long past.”
I read this as follows:
contested territory = land territory with a naval base that has enemy units present (and thus is contested) but where new naval units can still be placed in the adjacent sea zone (note Larry doesn’t say contested sea zone).
hostile sea zone = sea zone adjacent to a land territory with a naval base that is occupied by enemy naval units but where new naval units can still be placed (as in previous versions of A&A).
With the usual caveat that I may be wrong, I can’t recall Larry saying anything about a contested sea zone, but I will search the reports.
It may be that “Hostile Sea Zone” is the official description of a “contested” Sz, i.e. one where rival navies are present but not in combat.
But it still doesn’t entirely clear up if an attacking navy can retreat after calling off the attack.
Just a little update, I searched the turn reports and could find no mention of the concept of a “contested sea zone.” This leads me to believe that if the attacker calls off a naval battle he or she retreats, just like in other A&A games.
That is not my interpretation. I believe the map has been so designed that only one NB is adjacent to any given SZ, therefore you cannot build navy into a SZ adjacent to an enemy NB, therefore a hostile SZ must be one containing enemy ships, therefore since there is no combat after such a placement the SZ itself becomes contested.
I may not have worded it well, but I didn’t mean to imply that naval units could be built in a sea zone with an enemy naval base. Say Kiel has a naval base. Germany could build naval units in the adjacent sea zone even if British ships were present. Furthermore, if Kiel was contested, Germany could still build ships in the sea zone adjacent to Kiel. That’s all I was trying to get across. Sorry about the confusion.
I thought it was clear that naval battles were not changed too much, just no carriers and no destroyers. A hostile SZ has always been one with enemy ships in It.
So no contested SZs, then.
Does that meant that, when a player with ships in a SZ that an enemy has just built a new ship into takes his turn, he must either fight the new units to the death or withdraw?
I would hope said enemy naval base would be considered blockaded and as such no new naval units could be placed in it, but that’s just me.
So no contested SZs, then.
Does that meant that, when a player with ships in a SZ that an enemy has just built a new ship into takes his turn, he must either fight the new units to the death or withdraw?
If I remember correctly, ships can avoid battle in previous A&A versions, but perhaps he’s changed it to simulate the necessity of breaking through the blockade?
