embarking units from suez after conquest of egypt

[jjdenver]

Hello,

Egypt was conquered last turn by Germany. Germany has INF + MAR in Suez. But when IT AMPH moves into EM it's unable to embark them. Pls see 2 screenshots here and below. Is there some rule that prevents it or is this a bug? If a bug - can we edit the unit into the same hex as the AMPH and it will be "loaded" or it's more complex than that?

thanks

Capture.JPG (382.83 KiB) Viewed 511 times

Capture2.JPG (565.17 KiB) Viewed 511 times

[Orm]

Could you post a save from beginning of the naval movement step

[jjdenver]

Sure here it is thanks.

[Centuur]

RAW:

Alternatively, a TRS with unused transport capacity can end its move
in a sea area and immediately embark face-up land or aircraft units
(after any interception attempts ~ see 11.4.6). They must be in a
coastal hex in that sea area.

And:

although Suez is a coastal hex on the Red Sea, you can move
naval units directly to Suez from the Eastern Mediterranean and
vice versa.

So: no bug. You can only pick up units in Suez if you are in the Red Sea, or if you move into Suez out of the Eastern Med with a TRS.

[Orm]

I agree with what you say that the rule say.

However, this is not what MWIF says. The program clearly says that Suez is considered adjacent to the East Med. I've been thought that the text in MWIF is what decides if a hex is invadable or not, and if you can use shore bombardment on the hex, or not. And so on. Thus, the text in MWIF, as shown in picture, is either misleading and a bug, or the program should handle Suez as adjacent to the East Med for all purposes.

Edit: I am not arguing for Suez to be considered next to the East Med for all purposes. I am arguing that the info-text for Suez in MWIF should be clarified.

000.jpg (326.19 KiB) Viewed 431 times

[Centuur]

On shore bombardment: you can't use that out of the Eastern Med to an attack on Suez. But apart from that: you are right that the description of the hex "Adjacent to" seems to suggest that everything is allowed to do out of the Eastern Med.

[Orm]

Indeed. Shore bombardment should not be able to be used on the Suez hex from the East Med.

However. I was taught that one should not rely on the map in MWIF to rely information whether you could invade a hex, or not. Or if you could use shore bombardment, or not. You should instead rely on that information text. And here is an example on where you can not rely on that text either.

Anyway. No idea why I posted this. We seem to be in agreement.

[jjdenver]

ty for looking into this. seems the hex description needs to be fixed. But somehow I really seem to recall landing Brits into Suez from a TRS in EM - not sure if I've picked up though I have a (fake?) memory of that also.

[Angeldust2]

I am wondering, if the text description (and behaviour in MWIF?) of Kiel is not exactly wrong, too?

Kiel not adjacent.JPG (27.28 KiB) Viewed 398 times

Following RAW7, it should be
Adj: Baltic Sea, North Sea (no invasion) and not the other way round.

Kiel only on Baltic.JPG (36.22 KiB) Viewed 398 times

Or maybe not. In highest magnification and without units, I see now Kiel has a full sea hexside to North Sea, but not to Baltic Sea.

[Orm]

I think Kiel is correct. Although, you need to look at the original map to be sure. The MWIF map has some visual errors. Hence the need for checking that box. Liverpool, I think, is one of the hexes that shows a map error (invasion text is correct).

[Centuur]

The Kiel hex is correct. There is a hexside on the southwest which is completely bordering the North Sea (without a land connection to the Bremen hex. That allows an invasion out of the North Sea.