Naval attack question

I have a question about the game mechanics when attacking with a stack containing naval transports and troops.

In a recent game, my opponent, chess, had 40 subs (200 def.) docked right outside one of my capitals on the turn before reinforcements. I had 15 subs (105 atk.) carrying 30 marines (210 atk., subs+ marines = 315 atk.). I wanted to turnblock (and destroy) his subs to stop him from taking the city (he had a few ground units nearby). When I moved the whole stack to attack, it listed 315 as the attack strength. However, when the turn ended, I found to my dismay that my marines did not participate in the attack; two marines died every time I lost a sub. I lost my whole stack and he only lost a few subs.

I guess my question is why did this happen? Is a docked stack automatically undocked when turnblocked or attacked? Do ground troops in transports not count in this situation? If this is the case, the displayed attack strength would have been wrong... Or is this a bug?

Thanks for your help!

I'm assuming you were using MoS. (Master of Stealth)

• This boost the attack of submarines to 1 above that of marines.
  
• The units with the higher attack - submarines, attack first
  
• Because of this they get destroyed first
  
• The submarines were acting as transports (carrying marines), and so the marines were destroyed along with their transport (when a transport is destroyed, all units onboard are also destroyed)
  
• Therefore the marines never participated in the battle, because they were destroyed automatically with each submarine
  
• Hence your loss

Actually, I was using GW. So the subs don't usually die before the marines - I think it's random. Anyway, what I meant by docked subs was that they were overlapping a coastal line & could be attacked by ground troops on the land. When 1 sub dies, wouldn't the marines survive since the attacked location is on land (on the coast)? Or do marines always die in water->land attacks when the sub carrying them is destroyed?

Geschrieben von Grimm, 14.07.2013 at 22:37

Actually, I was using GW. So the subs don't usually die before the marines - I think it's random.

You could just be very unlucky, and your subs almost always attacked first out of luck - if there was no capacity for any marine it would be destroyed along with the submarine. However I think subs automatically attack first if the battle occurred over water.

Geschrieben von Grimm, 14.07.2013 at 22:37

what I meant by docked subs was that they were overlapping a coastal line & could be attacked by ground troops on the land. When 1 sub dies, wouldn't the marines survive since the attacked location is on land (on the coast)? Or do marines always die in water->land attacks when the sub carrying them is destroyed?

It is very unlikely the subs were actually docked, they were just very close to the land (land units can still attack units that appear to be docked but aren't), because chess probably wouldn't make such a mistake. If he knew about your subs he would probably make it look like they were docked, and therefore convince you to attack, so the subs attacked first and your force was destroyed.

Geschrieben von EndsOfInvention, 15.07.2013 at 11:39

Geschrieben von Grimm, 14.07.2013 at 22:37

what I meant by docked subs was that they were overlapping a coastal line & could be attacked by ground troops on the land. When 1 sub dies, wouldn't the marines survive since the attacked location is on land (on the coast)? Or do marines always die in water->land attacks when the sub carrying them is destroyed?

It is very unlikely the subs were actually docked, they were just very close to the land (land units can still attack units that appear to be docked but aren't), because chess probably wouldn't make such a mistake. If he knew about your subs he would probably make it look like they were docked, and therefore convince you to attack, so the subs attacked first and your force was destroyed.

That makes sense. I don't know how deliberate it was on his part though - he was just attacking the capital every turn with the stack of subs. It probably wasn't docked, just accessible from land. Anyway, I didn't make the same mistake twice; next turn, I attacked with marines from land + subs from water and killed the stack.

Out of curiosity, if I send a water->land attack against a coastal city with subs+marines, do the marines die when the sub carrying them dies? If this is the case, GW might actually be better if the sub attack were -1 (they wouldn't die before the marines).

Geschrieben von Grimm, 15.07.2013 at 16:55

That makes sense. I don't know how deliberate it was on his part though - he was just attacking the capital every turn with the stack of subs. It probably wasn't docked, just accessible from land. Anyway, I didn't make the same mistake twice; next turn, I attacked with marines from land + subs from water and killed the stack.

Out of curiosity, if I send a water->land attack against a coastal city with subs+marines, do the marines die when the sub carrying them dies? If this is the case, GW might actually be better if the sub attack were -1 (they wouldn't die before the marines).

No.
When the attack is against a city on land, marines are not eliminated with subs because there is land for them to go to, and they attack next. The order of attack is entirely random.
However, because submarines by themselves cannot take a city, if no marines survive, the city is left with 0 units but not taken. Mostly, with GW, attacks are carried out with only marines for this reason. Therefore having a -1 attack to submarines could be useful, but for a different reason.

Geschrieben von EndsOfInvention, 16.07.2013 at 10:35

Geschrieben von Grimm, 15.07.2013 at 16:55

Out of curiosity, if I send a water->land attack against a coastal city with subs+marines, do the marines die when the sub carrying them dies? If this is the case, GW might actually be better if the sub attack were -1 (they wouldn't die before the marines).

No.
When the attack is against a city on land, marines are not eliminated with subs because there is land for them to go to, and they attack next. The order of attack is entirely random.

OK, that's what I thought. So attacking a city and a "docked" stack should be the same. However, if the stack is not docked (it still might be accessible from land, though), the attack is treated as a water->water attack and ground troops on transports don't participate.

So I'd have 2 more questions (I just want to make sure I understand fully):
1) Can you distinguish between a docked and an non-docked stack that is just close to a coastline?
2) Since Chess' subs were not docked, why did my first sub+marine attack list the combined attack strength of the subs and the marines? Shouldn't it just have listed the attack strength of the subs only?

Thanks again for your help!

Geschrieben von Grimm, 16.07.2013 at 16:19

1) Can you distinguish between a docked and an non-docked stack that is just close to a coastline?
2) Since Chess' subs were not docked, why did my first sub+marine attack list the combined attack strength of the subs and the marines? Shouldn't it just have listed the attack strength of the subs only?

1) It is very difficult, but a docked sub should have the land travelling through the absolute centre of the circle that donates it.
2) The list is only the total maximum attack/defense of the stack. It does not take these things into account, nor does it change from strategies affecting the attack or defense of the stack. The numbers usually therefore have very little to do with the actual battle.

Ah, I see! I'll never trust the listed attack/defense ratings again!