Transports are automatically destroyed only when they are defenseless.  This means that something is still shooting at them and they either have no protection or cannot retreat.  Attacking transports are very seldom defenseless, as they can usually retreat.  See the AAP40 FAQ for further information.

Peck is right.  Transports may not unload after retreating.

Well, I have only played OOB since I bought the game. 6 games later and I don’t think the game is broke. I’ve won playing both sides. I’ve been playing A&A for year against one freind of mine. We’re quite good at. Once all the dust settle and the Alpha rules quite changing, we’ll give it a try. One twist we like to put in all versions of A&A is no new IC’s.

@Cmdr:

With most people you would be fine doing that.  With a few people, you would literally have to stick with the rule and this is a prime example of why these people require the letter of the law, so to speak.

Although, I would agree that:

Number of games = n
As n increases towards infinity
The limit on the number of games that Germany is in position to take Moscow just before Japan declares war on Russia, and Russia or Japan have not yet declared war is zero.

I could be wrong, we do not, yet, have enough data to support my statement, but I leave it to you to disprove my hypothesis.

You are right

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

Gargantua was kidding…

@JamesAleman:

I’ve brought the Bell-Fey expression into my gaming group. Soon the Midwest will know the term and you can look for it on local news channels…for instance, weathermen might say, I guess that it is not going to snow after all, I guess I Bell-Feyed that forecast. :)

Excellent expansion of the word.  I can see powerful forces are already at working taking this expression (a “Belfay”) and expanding it to other fields.

I would propose that it could be used in sports also.  Such as the Chicago Bears pulling a “Belfay” in the NFC Championship game by not really showing up to play Green Bay.

We’ve done weather and sports, who else can help to embed the term “pulled a Belfay” into pop culture?  Anyone have ins with Lady Gaga?

Dave

@Cmdr:

Accept, you’re down 4 defense units making the sacking of NSW easier.

The American fleet will help things out

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.

Thanks guys. Fast and accurate answers. This helps a lot.

Cheers! :-)

Just to provide logical justification: air units can’t scramble to provide air cover for adjacent provinces because those provinces can have their own fighters and/or airbase.  Sea zones cannot, and the purpose of air bases in many cases is to help nearby fleets.

I don’t care what you say, oss-ifer, there’s no blood in my alkee-haul system!

@Peck:

How does the fighter in Malta get too London in time, is it not attacking with the UK fleet on Italy

You have two rounds to move a fighter from Malta to England.  That’s only 7 Territories, realistically 8 (since you have to land enroute) but that is perfectly within the limits.

Yes, I count the Inf, Arm in Quebec because its the worst case for Germany.  I always judge from worst case scenarios for an overall opinion. When playing a game, I look at realistic and worst case, but this isnt a real game, its a theoretical one.

Anyway, one could run the odds without the inf, arm from Quebec to see what would happen.  I doubt it would be much different, but it may be, it’s 2 units that you can lose and 5 defensive punch, so it may shift things 7% (just a mental guess).

And yes, you give up the Med to Italy, but you keep London so you can continue to fight.  Right or wrong move, I don’t know.  All I know is if England doesn’t go “balls to the walls” defending England on round 1, I assume it will fall on Germany 3, in which case, I use Japan 1 to cripple the American fleet, sink the British transport and stage an invasion of Australia to press the advantage.

Since the U.S. does not start with one of the objectives: (5 of the 7 islands one) They are likely to collect 77….then factor in that when they do take one of the islands to get the 5, they typically have lost the Philippines objective, so they will be at 75-77 (if they have Brazil). I haven’t seen them reach 82 in 4 games of Alpha 2.

@Idi:

@Cmdr:

Happy VD day….I have to go work to put together a frazzin meal for myself cause hubby’s out playin sailor…

^_^

VD day…that’s frackin funny CJ. Can any fruit today?

Nope, but then, it’s almost Spring, not Fall…can fruit in the Fall…

Use the Japan crush of India coupled with a couple house rules:

1 - You cannot build industrial complexes, PERIOD in Africa or Europe. (Lets you build in the Pacific.  Ends the risk of 40 American Strat bombers in Norway crushing everything at will.)
2 - Germany gets 9 IPC to spend as they see fit before the start of the game; Italy gets 6 IPC. (Let them talk you down to 6 for Germany, 3 for Italy.)

That should evenup the odds a bit.

Kevin was succinct, but to elaborate if I understand properly:

Transports by themselves, never block enemy movements. This means yes, you can have one ship move into the transport sea zone during combat moves and send other ships through that zone to other zones during combat moves. Or you can ignore the transport and move through it during non combat moves.

Remember, killing a transport is a naval battle in that zone. This will prevent any coastal bombardments from that zone as a naval battle existed.

Regardless, I believe the intention of a sticky - is to make something stand out…  12 items  vs 3 or 4 is a bit much…

Some of them are even locked, and I doubt are used - like some of the stuff pertaining back to October.

The colored major and minors are people’s own creations. And I find either 2, 4, or 6 players is best (6 is a stretch b/c of you could get knocked out). And, for example, if i play a 4 player game i divide the powers

Germany and Italy
Japan
US and Russia
UK, Anzac, France, China

6 players
Germany
Japan
Italy
US China
Uk France
Russia Anzac

If you’re new i would either recommend the allies for a two player, probable UkAnzacFranceChina for 4 player and either italy, USchina, or UKFrance for a 6 player. Whatever you do, don’t play as Japan (and probable not Germany either). I’ve played my fair share of new players and Japan is disastrous. At least with Germany they know to go in the general direction of moscow. But with Japan i’ve seen people ignore the DEI. Game over.

@Cmdr:

@Fishmoto37:

@ghr2:

your board is very shiny

I  guess you are refering to my board. It is covered with a plexiglass sheet. Protects the game board and keeps it in place.

Keeps coffee and beer stains off I guess, huh?

Only coffee!

What about conquering PANAMA with the Japanese navy and bring both the Italian navy and then the germany nave on the other side of panama?
Of course the Japaneses must leave a blocker to counter a counter attack there.
Will you have a decent position there to treat W, E and C america with all three forces?
What are the IFs?