Who controls a port

[Agamemnon]

What is the supposed rule for which side controls a port when both sides have units next to it?

[Terif]

- ports can only change ownership in the turn you move a unit next to it when all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first

- the city/fortress belonging to the port is the main owner and the port switches back to it at the start of the next turn.

P.S.: not all tiles are connected to a port even if they are next to it - only if there is no water between them (to be sure you can check in the editor, but you also see it on the map if you have a close look ). E.g. Leningrad port has lots of land tiles around, but only Leningrad city and the tile north of it are connected to the port and therefore relevant to the question of ownership .

[Agamemnon]

- posted June 17, 2007 12:48 AM Terif - ports can only change ownership in the turn you move a unit next to it when all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first

when all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first

This is not true, that is why I asked.

I had a situation with UK corps XXX landing in tile 77,14, and moving into tile 79,14 taking control of the port Kiel 79,13. On the German turn, corps II moved into tile 78,13 north of the port (Kiel79, 13), and control switched to Germany. The next turn the UK corps XXX moved into tile 80,14 taking control of the port (Kiel 79,13), with German corps II still next to Kiel in tile 78,13. The port changed hands twice while enemy units were adjacent. AS in not "all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first." I also had one like this with Chatham port, the English were in tiles 66,15 and 65,14, this did not stop the port from becoming Axis at the start of the turn.

The truth is, that it is NOT how it works. As far as I can tell, ports change hands "whenever". Having a unit next to the port, may or may not have a bearing on when the port is captured. It seems to happen randomly, one turn it won't change hands, the next it will, or will not. Their must be some rule on how this works, known only to the "friend and Family network." Which isn't morally right. I paid legal tender for the game, but I don't get the same documentation as the "friend and Family network."

Now this obviously bogus answer insults me as a human being.

At least the "friend and Family network" is content.

[n0kn0k]

Originally posted by Agamemnon:

First of all, Terif is not in the Alpha/Beta group afaik.

Secondly he's probably the person with the most knowledge of the mechanics of the game next to Hubert himself.

All researched by himself. And he doesn't ever knowingly post bogus awnsers.

Why the aggressive talk about "friends and family" stuff?

I've seen you spawn that crap several times now. What are you hoping to gain by that?

Are you jealous or disappointed or something that you're not betatesting?

I can tell you "Friends and Family" betatesting is not comparable with the marketingtool betatests that most companies are using today to promote their game.

Those "play for free" "beta's" aren't even supposed to be called that.

Real alpha/beta testing is like a job, and most of the time boring and not even slightly fun at all.

I do know a bit about it since I'm doing it as a job

[Terif]

@Agamemnon:

Sorry, there is no "friend and Family network" except perhaps in your mind . Checked your previous posts...I now see you are not really up to seek answers but more to blow of your steam...

Since I don´t intend to help you with your rampage tour, please forgive me if I don´t take your "question" too seriously any more ...therefore just one more thing concerning it:

Port ownership is NOT random - a german corps in tile 78,13 would have prevented any change of ownership, so it obviously wasn´t really there and for Chatham you forgot to read/quote the second part concering cities - if London is occupied by a german unit, then the port will switch to Germany at the begining of the next turn - just how it happened to you and how I explained above.

P.S.:

Everything other players know more/better than you has been found out simply by playing the game or testing certain things via hotseat...something everyone can do - including you.

Most things are also written in the manual/version notes or you can find it when you have a closer look into the scripts - which takes time and is not everybodies cup of tea....

So instead of acting like a stubborn child , learning by playing is a good alternative. Learning from your battle experiences is the best thing you can do anyway cause all the small things (like port control) nearly never make a real difference - the grand strategy and learning when and where to attack/defend is what decides who wins the battles...and this you can only learn in the war against other human players anyway .

[n0kn0k]

Originally posted by Terif:

@Agamemnon:

Checked your previous posts...I now see you are not really up to seek answers but more to blow of your steam...

Was just doing the same thing when I saw your post Terif

And it's like you said, not worth the time and effort.

[Terif]

Yep, we wrote at the same time

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Agamemnon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

- posted June 17, 2007 12:48 AM Terif - ports can only change ownership in the turn you move a unit next to it when all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first

when all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first

This is not true, that is why I asked.

I had a situation with UK corps XXX landing in tile 77,14, and moving into tile 79,14 taking control of the port Kiel 79,13. On the German turn, corps II moved into tile 78,13 north of the port (Kiel79, 13), and control switched to Germany. The next turn the UK corps XXX moved into tile 80,14 taking control of the port (Kiel 79,13), with German corps II still next to Kiel in tile 78,13. The port changed hands twice while enemy units were adjacent. AS in not "all enemy units adjacent to it are destroyed, until then it belongs to the side who had its corps there first." I also had one like this with Chatham port, the English were in tiles 66,15 and 65,14, this did not stop the port from becoming Axis at the start of the turn.

The truth is, that it is NOT how it works. As far as I can tell, ports change hands "whenever". Having a unit next to the port, may or may not have a bearing on when the port is captured. It seems to happen randomly, one turn it won't change hands, the next it will, or will not. Their must be some rule on how this works, known only to the "friend and Family network." Which isn't morally right. I paid legal tender for the game, but I don't get the same documentation as the "friend and Family network."

Now this obviously bogus answer insults me as a human being.

At least the "friend and Family network" is content. </font>Did you ever consider this might be a bug?

[Agamemnon]

a german corps in tile 78,13 would have prevented any change of ownership, so it obviously wasn´t really there

It was there, I was doing some of that hotseat testing you talked of. It was a fight over Kiel, it changed hands every turn despite having troops all over the place. Plus tile 80,14 does not have any land touching the Kiel tile, yet it switch control when a British unit moved there.

Ok, London has been explained. Thank you, I didn't know having a city there changed things.

Did you ever consider this might be a bug?

Yes I did when I posted this before, I don't consider it a bug now, because people:

A)don't believe it, or

B)that is the way it's supposed to work

I have to go with option B.

Terif,

I do appreciate your answer, I just got ticked when I read that all tiles next to the port stuff. The last time I posted about it no one really answered the question. They say the all adjacent tile stuff. I just figured it was Kiel thing. Then this London port happened and it came up again. I can't plan a strategy based on any rule that I know is not really a rule. That is what I don't like about this game. I like strategy, but I can't really have one for a game of SC2 if the rules really don't apply all the time. It would be nice to have a list of the rules that don't always apply, and when.

[Terif]

Ok, since we are now back to the question of port ownership and you want to have it exact I will take the time to go more into detail and so here is the long and detailed version of the answer that covers all possibilities and applies all the time :

- to hold the port so it doesn´t change ownership in the turn the enemy lands a unit nearby, you need to have a unit in a tile that is connected to it via land (at Kiel e.g. this would be the tiles northwest or southwest of it: 78,13 or 78,14; Leningrad this would be the tiles of Leningrad city or the one north of it = 102,8 or 102,7)

- nevertheless the port will change ownership at the beginning of the next turn if the enemy has occupied the city/fortress to which the port belongs (like London or Leningrad – Kiel has no city/fortress so here this can´t happen and if you have a unit in tile 78,13 or 78,14 during the enemy turn you will never loose control of the port, i.e. in this case there can´t be a changing of hands every turn if you really have one unit there that stays there)

- for the enemy to gain immediate control (during the same turn) of a port, the tiles with land connections to the port need to be empty (= no defenders in them) – be it by destroying the defenders or cause there were no defenders in these tiles – and when this is the case the enemy can take control of the port with a unit moved close to the port. To gain control any tile adjacent to the port is sufficient, i.e. it doesn´t need to have a land connection, it only needs to be one of the adjacent tiles (For Kiel this e.g. means: if there is no enemy unit in tile 78,13 or 78,14, then it will change ownership if you move a unit into any adjacent tile which are 80,14 or 79,14 or 79,12 or 78,13 or 78,14; for Leningrad e.g. this means: if there is no enemy unit in Leningrad itself or the tile north of it (102,8 or 102,7), then you can capture the port by moving a unit into either one of those 2 tiles or into one of the other 3 adjacent land tiles (100,7 or 101,6 or 101,8).

Just test it in hotseat – you won´t find an exception to this rule as far as I know

Summary/simplification for the more practical use of the rule :

- keep a unit in one of the tiles that have a land connection to the port you don´t want to loose (and have a close look it is really a tile with land connection and not a tile seperated by water from the port !) and you can´t loose it during the enemy turn as long as your unit survives the enemy attacks (a fortification can help with surviving..). If a city/fortress belongs to the port, it is best to keep that, then you also won´t loose port control at the beginning of the next turn. If you have no defender at a port at all, then it is very easy for the enemy to capture it and you will loose it with every landing next to it.

[Agamemnon]

@Terif,

Ok, I stand corrected. I tested this again using the sequence from the earlier post and it did change hands. Their wasn't a unit in 78,13 or 78,14. When I tested it with a unit in one of those 2 tiles the port did not change hands. Therefore, I must have thought that tiles 79,14 and 80,14 were next to the port.

Question: Why would the port changes hands moving a unit into 79,14 and 80,14 if they are not next to the port, like 78,13 and 78,14?

Thank you for your in-depth reply, that allowed me to test this, and find out that only tiles 78,13, and 78,14 matter for holding the port.

[Terif]

In game it is simply the rule that if there is no defender you can take a port from any land tile next to it - so that is more a historical question and this rule is IMO even pretty historical :

To hold a port a country needs to defend the key spots that allow control of a port and if there are no defenders or they are separated by a river or even ocean from the port they want to defend, they can´t effectively prevent enemy units from gaining control of the harbour installations (and only watch helplessly with their spy glasses from the other side of the water.. ). To gain control on the other side is/was certainly pretty easy if there are no defenders present. Then any enemy unit in the vicinity can send some commando forces - and be it in a few boats - to take over control of a not/unsufficiently defended port .

[ June 19, 2007, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]