Page 1 of 1
Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 1:32 pm
by Midship1962
Why on earth some transports loaded with troops cannot move any longer, although I have plenty of supplies both in the UK and in the USA and have an interrupted link of transports in between the two continents? [:-]
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:01 pm
by MButtazoni
well the Transports can not move if they have units on them or units were moved on them at anytime in the turn. Transports do not move "with" units, Units move from sea area to sea area using Transports that are already in the zones. ie. you lay a carpet of transports and then move units from one coastal area to another.
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:03 pm
by James Ward
Is there any point in actually loading units on transports? If not, why is it even allowed?
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:08 pm
by MButtazoni
It's a strategy game, i'll let you decide if/when it's the right strategy to use. [:D]
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:08 pm
by Midship1962
Thanks for the quick answer guys [:)]. This gives me some clarifications indeed. However, my soldiers seem to refuse to move out of the region where they are stuck and land in my freshly invaded part of France. Why so?
Another question related to ships: on the other side of the world, my US navies face fierce attacks from Japanese fleet, and I cannot move extra fleet to the combat zone to support ships under attack (still this "illegal move" indication. Any reason for that?
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:10 pm
by MButtazoni
ORIGINAL: Midship1962
... my soldiers seem to refuse to move out of the region where they are stuck and land in my freshly invaded part of France. Why so?
is your transport capacity all used up for the turn?
Another question related to ships: on the other side of the world, my US navies face fierce attacks from Japanese fleet, and I cannot move extra fleet to the combat zone to support ships under attack (still this "illegal move" indication. Any reason for that?
sounds like your playing with Advanced Supply on and dont have the supplies where you need them
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:14 pm
by James Ward
It's a strategy game, i'll let you decide if/when it's the right strategy to use.
What can a loaded transport do besides hold supplies?
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:17 pm
by MButtazoni
ORIGINAL: James Ward
It's a strategy game, i'll let you decide if/when it's the right strategy to use.
What can a loaded transport do besides hold supplies?
any unit type can be loaded (sitting) on a Transport, by far the most common use of loading is for supplies (ie. as Fleet Oilers).
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:19 pm
by James Ward
any unit type can be loaded (sitting) on a Transport, by far the most common use of loading is for supplies (ie. as Fleet Oilers).
I guess what I'm asking is if transports can't move with anything loaded on them (a very odd rule IMO) then what is the point of loading anything but a supply unit on them?
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:32 pm
by hakon
This is a valid point. Land units(except for supply) have no reason to end their turn on a transport, and it would be easier to grasp unit transportation if this was not allowed.
Furthermore, by restricting strategic movement so that units would have to end their turn on land, we would avoid the kind of player error where the player thinks he flies cap, but (because he has no supply) moves his aircraft onboard a transport instead.
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:53 pm
by aletoledo
This is a valid point. Land units(except for supply) have no reason to end their turn on a transport, and it would be easier to grasp unit transportation if this was not allowed.
sorry, but you must never play japan. when you're traveling across the pacific, its not efficient to have a line of transports stretching the whole distance. sure the USA can do it, but with the limited number of resources for japan, you need to conserve everything.
stacking your troops onto trnsports can essentially cut out all the transports required to that point. for a pearl harbor attack that amounts to 3 transports if I recall correctly. 3 might not sound like much to a USA player, but 3 transports to a japanese player is 3 extra amphib attacks.
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:00 pm
by MarcelJV
So if I got this right, you make a line of transports as far as you can then move the units to the last transport. Then next turn you swing the tail to the front and it becomes the new end point and you move the units the rest of the way. [8D] Cool, would never have thought of that.
ORIGINAL: aletoledo
This is a valid point. Land units(except for supply) have no reason to end their turn on a transport, and it would be easier to grasp unit transportation if this was not allowed.
sorry, but you must never play japan. when you're traveling across the pacific, its not efficient to have a line of transports stretching the whole distance. sure the USA can do it, but with the limited number of resources for japan, you need to conserve everything.
stacking your troops onto trnsports can essentially cut out all the transports required to that point. for a pearl harbor attack that amounts to 3 transports if I recall correctly. 3 might not sound like much to a USA player, but 3 transports to a japanese player is 3 extra amphib attacks.
RE: Cannot understand some "illegal moves"
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 12:49 pm
by 5cats
Yes you got it right
It scares me though, since I'm playing aletoledo in PBEM, and he's Japan! [X(]
Germans can try this trick too (swinging the tail around for the invasion step) but it's always much safer to have an island to land troops on as a staging area.