I would have no imagine it came down to game balance.

An army can be bounced at it's landing site; I'd imagine being able to bounce along an entire route would make convoy's very impractical.

I'm with you, though. I've never seen a case where it would be really unfair to have it the other way; I just imagine the developers thought it through better than I have.

I actually agree with the rule. You need two fleets to dislodge the convoying fleet. It is still holding the are, as it patrols about. It just happens to be transporting an army. It can still defend itself - but it cannot support another unit.

Seems very fair.

Well to covnoy, you need the ship to go all the way from one side of your territory then grab the army and take it all the way to the other, while shooting enemies. Its quite simple to do

If my sea force were attacked by a sea force of equal strength I'm not sure I would have time to complete a convoy order.

A Fleet in transit is still a Fleet with guns. They simply drive off the attacking warships and continue on their journey.

I'm already convinced in terms of reality that such a condition could not be met. Had the D-day fleet needed to fight through a German contingent of equal strength, the landing never would have occurred.

My opinions aside, I'm wondering more about game-terms and effect.

Had the D-Day Fleets been already present in the Channel and in the midst of convoying when the equally strong Kriegsmarine attacked I think there's a good chance they would have repulsed the attack. That's by the by though, I can see the inconsistency you point out.

In the old days, this site only required you to attack a fleet to break the convoy. This made Italy and especially England significantly weaker, as there were just too many ways to stop the convoy.
On the historical view, I think it would happen.
As for the D-day comment - well, that is true. However, the situation in that case would require both fleets to be in the EC, which doesn't happen. If the English was in EC and the German in NS, then it would be attacking from the side, not in the way, and so wouldn't stop the convoy. If the fleet was in Picardy, then obviously you wouldn't be able to convoy to picardy, as there's a fleet in the way. However, you could go round the fight and convoy to Brest...

@Hereward77 and figlesquidge: :-D

Fair enough. We'll have to email Annapolis for a final ruling. Any cadets out there?

Thanks for the explanation to rule I've never really understood.

The concept is wrongly put above.
A fleet, like an army, controls a space. It rejects enemies that attack that space so that the space remains in control of the owning piece.
A convoy occurs in the mind of the designer, as a secondary issue in the space with the controller operating to protect that convoy function.
Therefore it takes dislodgment to disrupt the convoy.

The D-Day analogy was in correct, a better situation would have been:
if the Germans had a Fleet Brest moving to the English Channel and the Allies had a Fleet IN the English Channel making a convoyed attack on Brest with support from the Mid Atlantic, then the German fleet would be dislodged from Brest and forced to retreat.
However, I should point out that World War 2 analogies of a pre-World War One diplomatic balance of power concept game, may not be the way to go in explaining things.

Okay, I see the analogy. The fleet can't disrupt the convoy and break down the process.

I would argue that the convoy itself was under attack from a supported fleet, making a two-on-one, so the process should not be overruled.

Function may be my best point. Convoy is a secondary characteristic of a piece, much like a support order. Secondary orders come after primary functions, so the convoy should be cut.

Do differing rule-books offer differing rules?

also, like in a single hold, one stationary force outweighs one moving force.

Is there a rails variant, where unengaged units can "rail" from one area to another, as in the Risk house-rule?

Diplomacy aside, we have to keep World war one technology and prevailing naval strategy in mind when thinking about this. Historically, we are still talking about heavy cruisers as opposed to battleships, with much more limited speeds and maneuverability, not to mention firepower. This is why fleet bounce, instead of destroying one another, I think, because that would have been, and was, a rare occurrence with the available munitions calibers.
Now as too an explanation as to why the convoy is not broken, think lines of battle. Two fleets, sailing in single column parallel to one another (no Trafalgars or Lepantos here!) . The convoying fleet, carrying soldiers, is still able to continue moving in it's desired direction, generally at least, right? So it still gets to it's destination.

*the rare occurrence I refer to is outright ship destruction.
*This is, of course, assuming that both fleets are of roughly equal strength. Technological differences between, say, French and Turks, cannot be factored in...

Okay... any *historical* examples of a convoy that completed its mission when equal size fleets matched each other?

Can you think of any that didn't?
Or any notable amphibious invasions during the first world war, for that matter?

But if were talking broad historical context:
[1] Invasion of Carthage, second Punic war
[2] Hapsburg capture of Tunis (approx 1565?)

But these don't really refer to pre-dreadnought...

Really, this is just an extrapolation of theoretical possibilities. The fact of the matter was, historically, that Axis fleets never matched the strength or technology of Allied ones to any degree.
Equal force arguments based on historical *fact* are moot, because nothing of the sort ever occurred.

@ S.P.A.O... I've enjoyed reading your history! It's really interesting to me as I didn't know a lot of it.

I haven't gotten past the idea that WWI fleets bumped because they couldn't make holes in each other. :-)

The crews of ancient fleets were the soldiers themselves, so this is probably a more accurate representation of the game, though ancient, than more modern examples. The Romans were the first to have separate marine crews, but it still wasn't an easy division as they also participated in land battles when called upon. (Fire ships needed trained crews and warriors who knew how to fight on deck to protect these ships, among other examples of ramming tactics, which they loved.)

To be honest, I haven't gotten used to fleets bumping at all. A modern navy would never attempt a landing with a threatening force just next door itching for a fight. They would resolve the conflict asea, and then prepare to land once supremecy had been assured.

Lol, I can hear myself critiqueing another Dipper: "IT'S A GAME: GET OVER IT!!!" hahahaha

I've spent too long thinking over orders. lol

WAIT WAIT WAIT
Does this mean that if i convoy an army from tunis into albania, and the fleet in the ionian gets hit by the fleet in naples, the convoy still goes?

yes

by the rules this site plays by, it still goes through...

I all so thought for a time hit caused a convoy to stop.

yea i know right? I used to support hold the ship thats doing the convoying.
NOT ANYMORE

Well, if the fleet is dislodged the order does not go through...that's the key...

Fleets have an entire season to fill their orders. I think it's reasonable to assume that a fleet could transport an army across the English Channel if they had three months to do it and their aggressor was unable to dislodge them.

And like maintgallant said… "IT'S A GAME"

Or perhaps you'd care to contemplate why it's possible for fleets to transport an army from Syria to Edinburgh in one season when a single fleet is unable to make the journey. And how exactly does an army move from one fleet to another in the middle of the ocean? ;-)

Hey, you thinks that's a convoy....
I once convoyed an army from constantinople to St. Petersburg to get around a stalemate line, and it worked. Crazy game, that was.

I once made a convoy that went through LAND. So there.