@krieghund said in Submarine withdrawal question:
@cernel said in Submarine withdrawal question:
Nit-picking question: is a sea zone with no units in it a friendly sea zone? The fact that, in other passages, the rules state “friendly or unoccupied” makes me think that a “friendly” sea zone is only a sea zone with one or more own or allied units in it, whereas an “unoccupied” sea zone is only a sea zone with no units in it. Otherwise, if “friendly” means having no enemy units in it, then saying “friendly or unoccupied” is exactly the same as saying just “friendly” (as all “unoccupied” zones would be “friendly”).
“Friendly” is defined on page 12 of the Rulebook as “controlled or occupied by you or a member of your alliance.” This doesn’t include unoccupied sea zones.
Well then, I guess the rule that, on page 19 of the rule-book, says that “attacking subs retreat first and withdraw BACK to ONE adjacent friendly sea zone from which they or any accompanying attacking naval units came”, as well as the clarification in the http://smo63.fatcow.com/pdf/ClassicSuppDoc.pdf, stating that “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” means that attacking submarines can only withdraw to sea zones currently occupied by one or more units each of which is controlled by the same player controlling the submarine or by a member of his/her alliance (because both passages only say “friendly”, not “friendly or unoccupied”).
So, is it correct (I believe it should not.) to state that, if I move a submarine of one space into combat from zone A to zone B, and, while resolving the battle in B, zone A is unoccupied (so not friendly), then I cannot withdraw the submarine to zone A, whereas I could if there would be one or more own or allied units in the zone? I’m fairly certain this has to be an oversight, and, in both aforementioned passages, the writer or the writers intended to write “friendly or unoccupied” and mistakenly only wrote “friendly”. That is why I was wondering if “friendly” just meant “non-hostile” so comprising “unoccupied” sea zones too, even though that doesn’t really make sense, also literally (hard to see something being friendly if there is nothing friendly there).
However, a subsequent sentence states that “if several defending subs withdraw on the same round, they must also withdraw to the same sea zone–BACK to one adjacent friendly or unoccupied sea zone”. Thus, here, the zone can also be unoccupied, but this covers only the case in which “several” (whatever that means) submarines are withdrawing (so the clarification certainly cannot apply to the case in which I withdraw only one submarine).
Moreover, the firstly aforementioned passage of the “Classic Support Document” appears to say that attacking submarines cannot even regularly retreat when they would be retreating with other units. Indeed, after having said that “Subs may retreat as above, or they could “withdraw,””, the document, on the same section, goes on stating that (as I’ve already quoted) “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came”.
These two sentences appear to be in partial direct contradiction of one an other: the first sentence is telling me that I can choose either to retreat my submarine as normal or to withdraw them under their special rules, whereas the second sentence is telling me that, if I choose to “retreat” my submarines with other naval units, I must instead “withdraw” them, assumingly under their special withdrawing rules. So, literally, this means that I can normally retreat submarines only if all remaining naval units attacking in the battle are submarines, otherwise submarines must specially withdraw if they want to leave the battle together with non-submarine units.
Is the sentence “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first and must withdraw BACK to one adjacent friendly sea zone from which any of the attacking units came” meaning the same as saying “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must use its special withdraw ability” or not?
At this point, all this being said, if we would take it all literally, beside the fact that (not to be oblivious to the obvious) we would understand “several” as certainly meaning “two or more” (even though “several” is a rather vague word, usually actually supposed to be an unspecified, yet at least greater than two, number), what I feel forced to understand is all the following, on any round of combat in which one or more defending units remain:
- If I have one or more attacking submarines and no other attacking naval units, I can (referring to the attacking units only)
normally retreat all submarines to one friendly or unoccupied zone
or specially withdraw one submarine to one friendly sea zone
or specially withdraw two or more (“several”) submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
or both specially withdraw one submarine to one friendly sea zone and retreat all other submarines to the same zone or to an other friendly zone or to an unoccupied one
or both specially withdraw two or more (“several”) submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other submarines to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied zone.
- If I have one or more attacking submarines and one or more other attacking naval units, I cannot normally retreat all naval units together (because “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first”), but I can (referring to the attacking units only)
specially withdraw one submarine to one friendly sea zone
or specially withdraw two or more (“several”) submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
or, if only one attacking submarine remains, both specially withdraw the submarine to one friendly sea zone and retreat all other units to the same zone or to an other friendly zone or to an unoccupied one
or, if two or more attacking submarines remain, both specially withdraw all submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other units to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied zone.
Obviously, I realize that what I just described makes hardly any sense (It is particularly weird that a lone withdrawing submarine cannot go into unoccupied zones while several ones together can.), but I also believe that is what the rules, and especially the clarifications, are actually literally saying.
On the other hand, if I decide to disregard both the English meaning and the rule-book definition of “friendly”, going instead ahead deciding that “friendly” means “non-hostile” (which, in turn, for sea zones, is the same as saying “friendly or unoccupied”) and that the phrase “If retreating with other naval units, the attacking sub must withdraw first” means “If the other attacking naval units (possibly comprising one or more submarines which are not being withdrawn) are retreating, all attacking submarines which are being withdrawn must do so before the other naval units” (and that “several” still means “two or more”), then, on any round of combat in which one or more defending units remain,
if one or more (possibly all) of the remaining naval units are submarines, I can (referring to the attacking units only)
normally retreat all naval units (comprising all submarines) to one friendly or unoccupied zone
or specially withdraw one or more submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone
or both specially withdraw one or more submarines to one friendly or unoccupied sea zone and retreat all other naval units (comprising any submarines which I have not withdrawn) to the same zone or to an other friendly or unoccupied zone.
What I just said (meaning everything I wrote from the latest “on any round of combat” phrase onwards) is what I believe the writer intended the rules to say (so it is how I would play the game), as well as what I understand you are saying in this topic, yet it is not what I understand the rules and their clarifications are literally actually saying.
In particular, I assume that I am allowed, on a same combat round, to pull the move of special-withdrawing one or more attacking submarines to one zone and regular-retreating all other attacking submarines to one other zone, thus practically being able to split my attacking submarines into two retreating groups on a same round of combat.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that being able to resolve the regular battle first and then conduct SBR only in case the territory was not overtaken is merely another oversight in these old rules, especially considering that the most recent ones force making the SBR first, so the two battles never actually influence each other?
Actually, per the 1991 Rules Clarifications, the SBR must be resolved first.
Is it correct to say that in the most recent rules-sets two battles never influence what may be done in each other beside the case of naval battles before sea-borne assaults?
The case of both attack and SBR against the same territory remains.
Can you please be clearer on how the two battles influence each other in any ways? I see no influence at all! In the SBR, the bomber will either be shot down or will destroy some IPC and, thereafter, will be completely ignored in the regular battle on the same territory. By “influence” I meant “add or remove options to what you can do or change any probabilities”: the rules (as explained) imply that withdrawing from a sea zone may remove withdrawing options within a battle which is made thereafter in an other sea zone, whereas I’m not seeing any kind of options being added or removed in a land battle by making a SBR in the same territory. By the way, I’m not seeing any influence also in games in which SBR damages Industrial Complexes, or whatever else, as long as this is not going to influence what the defender may do (because whether or not the attacker is going to capture or liberate a territory having any amount or some more damage doesn’t matter for combat).
On this matter, since you said
This isn’t the only instance on the results of one battle affecting another. The best example is both attacking and performing an SBR against the same territory, just in case the territory is not captured.
are you sure that, in Classic, a SBR is a “battle”? When I was talking about “two or more battles”, I was assuming that was simply not comprising strategic bombing raids. Reading the rule-book, it doesn’t appear to me that SBR are considered to be battles. Of course, these are just semantics, but I’m curious whether or not a SBR is a battle, in Classic (because I tend to understand that battles and SBR are different things there, but I may be overlooking something somewhere).
Regardless, even if SBRing and regular-attacking the same territory would exert any sort of influence between each other (which I’m not seeing), that is a case of two battles in the same zone, so it is a special case, especially in the moment it is stated that one of the two combats (namely, the SBR) always happens before the other one, as here we have a case in which the rules appear to imply that one happens after the other one, whereas I was actually thinking only about battles in different zones. It is a very different matter to say that two unrelated naval battles in different sea zones may influence each other, as those may be reasonably assumed happening at the same time even though they are resolved one after the other. So let me rewrite my previous statement
My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceeding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended.
as “My understanding is that (beside sea battles preceding amphibious attacks, where the offload movement happens after the sea battle), if you have two or more battles each of which is in a different zone, you resolve them in the order you choose, but the battles themselves are assumed happening at the same time, not one starting after the previously resolved one has ended”.
As to why I think so, I can further explain.
Of course, since the official FAQ affirm that “defending subs can withdraw into sea zones that the attacking forces came from, thus cutting off the attacker’s avenue of retreat. As long as there are no enemy units currently in a sea zone, it’s a legal withdrawal path for defending subs.”, it is clear enough that those submarines must be cutting off retreat to the zone they withdrew and doing so also for all attacking units of every battle still to be resolved, so it is indeed officially stated that battles in different sea zones may thus influence each other (in that a battle may reduce the retreat options of a subsequently resolved battle, for either or both of the attacker and the defender). However, I want to stress that is not convincing me to believe that the withdraw movement was made before the next resolved battle started. In particular, I believe that assuming so would be inconsistent with the fact that, in the “Classic Support Document”, there is a clarification stating that “Subs cannot retreat or withdraw to a sea zone that is or was a battle site on the same turn!”.
For example, let’s say that I attack a battleship alone with a submarine alone moving of one space from zone A to zone B, and in a zone C, which is adjacent to both zone A and zone B, there are only attacking battleships and defending submarines at the end of the Combat Movement phase.
I firstly resolve the battle in zone B, during which both units miss and the attacking submarine withdraw to zone A.
I secondly resolve the battle in zone C, during which all units miss and all the defending submarines withdraw.
In this situation, the defending player is unable to withdraw any defending submarines to A because (apparently) an enemy submarine (withdrawn during a previously resolved battle) is now in the zone and they are also unable to withdraw any defending submarines to B solely because the same enemy submarine has been (or was?) in there: it is like the submarine is at the same time in two different places contemporarily, since the same submarine is the only enemy units which is making impossible for me to move to either one of A and B.
It seems clear enough to me that the rule forbidding you to withdraw to a battle site on the same turn regardless of what happened in that battle has to be based on the assumption that the battle happens at the same time as the currently resolving battle because, if it happened beforehand and each of the defending units was either killed or withdrawn, now that zone would be either friendly or unoccupied from the perspective of the attacker, so there is no reason for it to be non-eligible.
But if the already withdrawn defending submarine in the previously resolved battle is actually still in the zone of that battle when I am withdrawing from the next one (as their presence, which caused the battle, is the only reason why the rules forbid me to go to that zone), then they cannot also be in the zone to which they have been withdrawn.
Also for these reasons, I maintain that I’m still under the strong impression that the original author (Larry Harris) meant that, beside land battles having one or more units offloading from hostile sea zones and beside strategic bombing raids (if strategic bombing raids are battles too), all battles happen at the same time (even though they are resolved sequentially) and every retreated or withdrawn unit is still in the zone of its battle when any subsequently resolved battle ends, so all retreating movements which are happening during the “Combat” phase are just as simultaneous as the movements happening during any other phase, so they all actually happen after all battles of that “Combat” phase have ended. Why, otherwise, would I be forbidden to withdraw defending submarines into a zone where a battle was made on the current phase against only one defending submarine which was withdrawn if that would mean that now there are no enemy units left in that zone?
Apologies for the lengthy post, but I don’t think I can make it much smaller and still say all I want to say.