Matrix Games Forums

Included is the non-phasing naval combat decision auto save file. Game basically crashes at this point.

During their turn, the Italians moved a transport with a German armor into the East Med. The CW has a task force there. The Italians and CW are NOT at war with each other.

Note: the German units are out of supply in Greece for some reason as well. I would think they could get supply through a port on the Italian waters (Italians have a convoy there), but I could be wrong. They are also in range of the Bulgarian capital and those are out of supply as well.

There's currently a known bug affecting overseas supply. German units should be able to trace supply overseas through Italian convoys, but currently can not. However, your situation might not be caused by a bug - Even when it's working correctly, German units can't trace supply through an Italian convoy if the convoy is in a sea zone containing a unit that is at war with Germany but not with Italy. So a single British naval unit would cut that supply.

Not the case for the convoy in the Italian coast area. There are currently no units belonging to any of the Allies in the Italian coast area.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Included is the non-phasing naval combat decision auto save file. Game basically crashes at this point.

During their turn, the Italians moved a transport with a German armor into the East Med. The CW has a task force there. The Italians and CW are NOT at war with each other.

Note: the German units are out of supply in Greece for some reason as well. I would think they could get supply through a port on the Italian waters (Italians have a convoy there), but I could be wrong. They are also in range of the Bulgarian capital and those are out of supply as well.

I'm not clear on the rule here. Can the Commonwealth attack the Italian transport because it is carrying a German unit?

The program code is of two minds on this - which is what is causing the fatal error. The first set of code says the Commonwealth can attack (enemy unit present) but the second set of code says it can't (no enemy air or naval units present).

You can only attempt to intercept naval units you are at war with. If several major powers’ or minor country’s units attempt to intercept a task force containing units from the other side, you don’t all have to be at war with every moving unit to intercept the task force ~ however the naval units not at war with any intercepting major power or minor country are ignored in the subsequent naval combat.

During port strikes and naval combats, a unit can’t fight against units from the other side unless it is at war with at least one of them (being at war with an enemy unit the naval unit is transporting is not enough). However, you resolve, as one combat, a combat that includes units that are not at war with each other, so long as each unit included is at war with at least 1 enemy unit in the combat.

Example: A combat includes a Commonwealth and a US naval unit against a Japanese and a German unit. The US is at war with Japan and the Commonwealth is at war with Germany. You fight this as one combat even though US units can’t fight Germans and Japanese units can’t fight Commonwealth. The Japanese unit is sunk. In the next round, the US unit isn’t included because it can’t fight German units.
Exceptions to the restriction on neutral naval units fighting are US units escorting Allied convoys (see 13.3.2, entry options 11, 29 & 38) and all US units after unrestricted naval warfare is chosen (entry option 50).

However a lone naval unit, regardless of cargo, cannot be attacked unless you are at war with the owner of the ship.

Now that Ive said this, I have no proof, but expect to be exonerated [;)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Can the Commonwealth attack the Italian transport because it is carrying a German unit?

No, unless the CW is at war with Italy.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Can the Commonwealth attack the Italian transport because it is carrying a German unit?

No, unless the CW is at war with Italy.

Okay. Thanks. I'll have to modify the code some more. After my changes today there is a partial fix to avoid the fatal error, but I am unhappy with it because there is a subsequent non-fatal error (due to the code's confusion about this rule).