Why does a sub in box 3 need a -1 to intercept?

[juntoalmar]

I found this in my current game. Why does the sub need to roll a -1 or less to intercept the moving units? Shouldn't be 3 or less?

Rules as coded, page 50: "You succeed if you roll the modified search number, or less, of the highest section that contains one of your commited units

convoy.png (45.27 KiB) Viewed 528 times

[Joseignacio]

It should need a 3 or less with fine weather. Dont think you get a bonus +1 for the conv in this case but maybe. But anyway never a -1.

[Courtenay]

This is a cosmetic bug that has been around for a long time. As far as I know, MWiF actually calculates the intercept number correctly.

I think the problem arises because you have the option to not include the SUBs in the intercept attempt, and for some reason MWiF assumes that you won't. Since you don't have any ships, if you don't include your SUB, you need to roll a -1 to be successful. Or even a zero might do it!

P.S. Presence of CPs does not affect search numbers on intercept attempts.

[Orm]

Not a bug, if my memory serves.

MWIF assumes, as mentioned above, that the SUB is not included so the search number first shown is without SUB. If the box is checked to include the SUB then the intercept number will change to reflect that the SUB is included.

[juntoalmar]

Thanks for your answers. I don't remember if there's a checkbox in the form to select "Include subs".

Still, if it was there, it may not be a bug but it's an UX/usability issue. It shouldn't say "You need a -1 to intercept" but something like "No interception without subs" / "You need to include a unit to attemp interception", etc... because the Ally only has subs in the Italian Coast.

The current message is missleading.

[Orm]

The current message is missleading.

Indeed. Took me a long time to realise why it was 'wrong' search number.

Had a picture showing the "box" in my archive. Didn't find one with it changing the search number. However, it shows the box you need to tick to get the correct intercept number.

0000.jpg (236.62 KiB) Viewed 459 times