Page 1 of 1
Intercepting Sea Transport
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:36 pm
by Chocolino
Thank you for the useful guide on all affairs naval, Mike. A great help! I am one of those still struggling with understanding some of the naval aspects explained there.
Related question: I have noticed that Sea Transports with direct connection from harbor to harbor arrive instantly (e.g. LeHavre to Plymouth) without being at sea during an opponents turn. As a result they are never intercepted and seem to arrive always fully undamaged. This seems to be completely independent of the enemy naval presence in the zone that the unit crosses through. Am I just lucky or is this intended (Being always lucky is not really me).
Similar, I have noticed that you can do this direct transporting harbor to harbor even across 2 sea zones sometimes (e.g. Naples - Tubruk) but I have never systematically investigated in which circumstances. So I am not 100% sure if it always works. Any insights that others have made are very appreciated. Thank you.
RE: Intercepting Sea Transport
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:16 am
by Mike Dubost
ORIGINAL: Chocolino
Thank you for the useful guide on all affairs naval, Mike. A great help! I am one of those still struggling with understanding some of the naval aspects explained there.
Related question: I have noticed that Sea Transports with direct connection from harbor to harbor arrive instantly (e.g. LeHavre to Plymouth) without being at sea during an opponents turn. As a result they are never intercepted and seem to arrive always fully undamaged. This seems to be completely independent of the enemy naval presence in the zone that the unit crosses through. Am I just lucky or is this intended (Being always lucky is not really me).
Similar, I have noticed that you can do this direct transporting harbor to harbor even across 2 sea zones sometimes (e.g. Naples - Tubruk) but I have never systematically investigated in which circumstances. So I am not 100% sure if it always works. Any insights that others have made are very appreciated. Thank you.
I am glad that it has proved to be useful.
I have never had direct port to port transport intercepted, so I assume that it is an intentional design feature.
Since the sea zone boundaries are not marked on the map, I am not sure which ports are separated by more than one sea zone. I think that naval units have a 2 zone movement, since I can return the German units in the North Atlantic to Kiel in the first turn. I have found that in the initial turns, I have been unable to trasport from Venice to Tubruk without spending a turn at sea, so I think that may cross a zone boundary. I do wish that the zone boundaries would be marked on the fleet screen to make it easier to tell.
As you can tell, I don't have all of the answers.
RE: Intercepting Sea Transport
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:24 am
by Chocolino
Since the sea zone boundaries are not marked on the map, I am not sure which ports are separated by more than one sea zone
Very true. I always imagined that the harbors connected to a sea zone define a sea zone roughly. All harbors are connected to either one or two sea zones. The ones connected to two zones I assumed to be at the boundary. The relationship seems reciprocal in the sense that when you click on the sea zone, they connect back to the same harbors. (Exception: Archangelsk is connected to Norwegian Sea only but not Barents Sea while Rarents is connected to Archangelsk. Not a big deal since usually not exactly a key zone in most games.)
I think that naval units have a 2 zone movement, since I can return the German units in the North Atlantic to Kiel in the first turn
I always shipped them dutifully via a connecting sea zone first and thought you can move only one green line on the fleet screen and thougth the sea transport via 2 zones an exception. Thank you for that hint.
As you can tell, I don't have all of the answers.
That was very helpful. Thank you.
RE: Intercepting Sea Transport
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:25 pm
by Mike Dubost
ORIGINAL: Chocolino
Since the sea zone boundaries are not marked on the map, I am not sure which ports are separated by more than one sea zone
Very true. I always imagined that the harbors connected to a sea zone define a sea zone roughly. All harbors are connected to either one or two sea zones. The ones connected to two zones I assumed to be at the boundary. The relationship seems reciprocal in the sense that when you click on the sea zone, they connect back to the same harbors. (Exception: Archangelsk is connected to Norwegian Sea only but not Barents Sea while Rarents is connected to Archangelsk. Not a big deal since usually not exactly a key zone in most games.)
Interesting. I had assumed the ports with connections to 2 sea zones represented the 2 zone range, I had not considered the possibility of them representing a zonal boundary.
I learn something new all the time.
Thanks.