$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 68.27

4,763 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
30% of Goal | 28 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

EuroFront II» Forums » Rules

Subject: Straits and two sea ports rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Spicer
United Kingdom
Gerrards Cross,
Bucks
flag msg tools
Another rare but potentially influential situation.

If a strait has each alliance controlling one side of it, but one of the ports is a double sea port (so Kerch or Aden being the two where it matters), what rules apply?

1) Is the strait blocked for supply? Or can supply go into the port and then out again (i.e. it passes through the port rather than the strait)?
The latter seems odd to me, but could make a big difference though for Allied supply in MF (Italians only need to take one side of the strait, not both and the Allies are dependent on road supply across the desert to Iraq). And can also affect supply into Rostov - recently had the example of the Germans in Novorisisk but the Soviets in Kerch, and the Soviets believed they could trace supply into and out of Kerch. Personally I would have thought it would be interdicted by gunfire, mines, etc.

2) Does a unit under naval movement have to stop at that port (but it could then carry on in a future turn), or can it go in and out again in the same turn? If the former then presence on the strait has no impact since both the examples quoted (Kerch and Aden) are on boundaries between sea areas.
Again, I would have said being on the strait allows a level of interdiction, so the unit lands and ends it's turn.

Clear for invasions though, as if the land in the port, that's where they stay.

John

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Tillotson
United States
Overland park
Kansas
flag msg tools
john s wrote:
Another rare but potentially influential situation.

If a strait has each alliance controlling one side of it, but one of the ports is a double sea port (so Kerch or Aden being the two where it matters), what rules apply?

1) Is the strait blocked for supply? Or can supply go into the port and then out again (i.e. it passes through the port rather than the strait)?
The latter seems odd to me, but could make a big difference though for Allied supply in MF (Italians only need to take one side of the strait, not both and the Allies are dependent on road supply across the desert to Iraq). And can also affect supply into Rostov - recently had the example of the Germans in Novorisisk but the Soviets in Kerch, and the Soviets believed they could trace supply into and out of Kerch. Personally I would have thought it would be interdicted by gunfire, mines, etc.


Per rule 1.371,
You can trace supply if:
a) you control BOTH sides, or
b) you control one side and the other side is neutral, or
c) both sides are neutral controlled.

You cannot trace supply if:
a) the enemy controls either side of the strait.

So per your example, the Soviets cannot trace supply through the straits, either to or from Kerch. He could trace supply from Kerch to Mariupol or Rostov, since that would not go through the straits.

Note: National Supply can be traced through a strait unless the enemy controls both sides of the strait. National Supply is not the same as a Supply Line.


john s wrote:

2) Does a unit under naval movement have to stop at that port (but it could then carry on in a future turn), or can it go in and out again in the same turn? If the former then presence on the strait has no impact since both the examples quoted (Kerch and Aden) are on boundaries between sea areas.
Again, I would have said being on the strait allows a level of interdiction, so the unit lands and ends it's turn.

Clear for invasions though, as if the land in the port, that's where they stay.

John


Per rule 15.3, Sea Movement, units can use sea moves to move between controlled ports, but not through a strait if one side is enemy controlled (just like supply). You can use multiple sea moves to move multiple sea areas, but not multiple ports. In short, the unit leaves one port, lands at another, end of move.

So, per your example, the unit cannot land in Kerch at all, as the enemy controls one side of the strait. You could invade that hex from the Med, but the unit would have to stop in that hex. Such a unit could sea move out of Kerch the next turn, but only to a controlled port on the Black Sea, as the strait is blocked.

Hope this helps.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RedPlanet
Australia
Gold Coast
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

ahhhh a game of interpretations ......

sometimes right sometimes wrong ......

but the best damn Monster European game still ......
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Spicer
United Kingdom
Gerrards Cross,
Bucks
flag msg tools
Thanks for the thoughts Bruce.

I think it means it is a common understanding that a unit cannot be shipped through Kerch or Aden in a single turn in the circumstances described (with the enemy controlling the other side), and I see no sign that anyone disagrees. Makes complete sense to me.

But surely a unit can be shipped into a dual sea area port like Kerch, from either sea area, when the other side of the strait is controlled by your opponent? The unit is not at that time passing through the strait. And if it starts there it can ship either way next turn makes sense to me.

If you cannot ship in at all then the Italians taking just British Somaliland closes the Straits of Hormuz, which would not be historically accurate - the Italians caused some disruption (in game terms have to stop there and then restart the journey on next turn) but never closed them to Allied shipping.

In game terms it costs extra time (one turn clearing mines, waiting till there is no moon, etc) and extra resources (activating a THQ or SHQ again minesweepers, diversions, etc) to get shipping through. The military would find a way if the need was there!


And clearly there is disagreement about tracing supply in these circumstances.

Craig, if you pick this up can you give a ruling on the intent for tracing supply in the Kerch/Aden examples?

I can see it either way, but I'd think the key is what you want to happen at the Straits of Hormuz.
If supply cannot be traced into and out of a dual sea port then Italian control of British Somaliland can be a game ender - it only needs a revolt in Iraq at that point (or more likely the Italians only move into British Somaliland immediately after Iraq goes into revolt) and all Allied units in Egypt/ Libya go OOS, or at least have to try to trace sea supply past Italy, which requires a lot of luck for even one turn.
To stop it the British have to leave a unit permanently in British Somaliland (ME THQ I'd guess) until North Africa is secured. Which seems a heavy penalty, as they need that unit in the Mandates.
But if you can ship supply in to and out of a dual port the presence of a strait with enemy control of one side of it becomes irrelevant, which also seems odd.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Spicer
United Kingdom
Gerrards Cross,
Bucks
flag msg tools
No need for Craig's view - he has put it in the rules!

See 15.4 - A Sea Lane cannot pass through a
Straits if either side is enemy controlled.
It can end in a port on the Straits but
can go no further by sea even if the port
borders another sea.

So the straits of Hormuz and the Kerch straits are blocked for supply if one side is controlled by the enemy.

Would have made a difference to my last EuF game!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Tillotson
United States
Overland park
Kansas
flag msg tools
Nevermind - looks like 15.4 covers it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.