@ArthurJames

Interesting - and quite unusual on this forum - that it took 8 years to see the initital question of the OP has been finally answered.

In that case I accept the resurrection of an ancient buried topic - despite the fact that the OP hasn’t been online since then. ;-)

So thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC5zN4iV9YdHu-UhYV8G6DmHSnPPz2223

@shadowhawk said in Ottawa, the forgotten VC:

@dazedwit said in Ottawa, the forgotten VC:

@SuperbattleshipYamato

And we mostly dont question rolls as well as moves. But i guess this is the same game where you gifted Germany London.

no, different game.

And gifted London? LOLOLOLOLOL

@dazedwit my point is that if you can’t win 110, you can’t win sea lion. If Britain wants to stop sea lion they are much better off scrambling in G1 rather than conserving air for the land invasion. Typically in the game german air are more valuable than UK air. I would always scramble in that situation because its very likely that I am trading 1-2 planes against 6.

If Germany uses 9 transports and loses those 6 planes and the British lose 2, the UK doesn’t need to build more than 6 inf before G3 to have a better than 50% chance of denying sea lion. I’m assuming here no J1 or J2 which would make stopping sea lion easier. And I’m calculating with British going with a 92 stack (which would add 2 figs, a tac, an inf and a AA) although I’m sure that won’t strictly be necessary. Obviously even with the bombing and convoying, they should manage more than 6 inf. And they may not need land units at all since they might be able to stop it at sea.

Axis have a significant advantage in the OOB game (absent a bid) and it looks to me that in taking risky combats that you will likely lose, you are trading that away. Of course, the dice can help you out here, but usually they won’t.

But the best way to test strategies will always be against actual competition. At some point I’m sure you will get a chance to test this against other opponents.

@dazedwit

Germany duking it out with the Army of Siberia

IMG_9183.jpg

Large bulge of troops massing for Berlin

IMG_9184.jpg

@Corperal-Siggy-F said in Tank blitzing through newly conquered territory:

I have a question. Can you go into an unoccupeid unfriendly county with two tanks and than blitz each in a separate unfriendly contries to do combat?

For example go from Ukraine into Rostov with two tanks and then blitz to Volgorod with one tank and intop the Caucasus with the other?

Yep, you sure can.

@dazedwit

In case you need it, here are PDFs of the latest Axis and Allies rules from the official manufacturer, including for Europe and Pacific 1940:

https://renegadegamestudios.com/axis-allies-resources

@SuperbattleshipYamato Italian starting army in E.Africa is too slow and too weak by itself to take Capetown.If axis is able to control suez canal and can load TTs from sz 81 (red sea) it might be doable.Another plan could be to strafe attack Egypt from Sudan+Alexandria,retreat everything including fast movers to Sudan.

@shadowhawk

Agreed. Battleships are definitely superior to cruisers.

@morvill said in Submarine & Fighter attack, Fighter DD defense - Retreat Rules:

To me, it seems like because the 2 defending fighters have a valid target, that being the 1 attacking fighter, this condition is not met. And it does not specify “All units of a particular type”, so we can’t say the destroyer was “all units” in any sense. I don’t think I’ll see any disagreement on that. Thus, another round of combat will ensue unless the attacker chooses to retreat. The submarines cannot submerge at any other point than step 2 of the General Combat Sequence, thus for the subs to remain in the sea zone, another round of combat must persist, otherwise they must retreat “with” (the fighters remain the sea zone as part of their retreat) the fighter. Yet, if the attacker chooses to press, the subs do not have any valid targets for the next round of combat. Again, they could choose to submerge, but you could also surprise strike at “no units”, which to my knowledge is neither allowed nor disallowed by the rules, at least in this context.

Correct. It doesn’t matter whether or not all units on both sides have a valid target, only that at least one on each side does. If the attacker decides to press, all units will remain in the sea zone, even those that don’t have a valid target (the subs). If the attacker decides to retreat, all attacking units must retreat. As you say, the subs can submerge in the next combat round, but the only reason for them to do so would be so that they can remain in the sea zone if the attacker decides to retreat at the end of that round, as they are effectively out of the fight anyway.

Not sure if this is relevant, but per the rules:

Sea zones are either friendly or hostile. Friendly sea zones contain no surface warships (this doesn’t include submarines and transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war. Hostile sea zones contain surface warships belonging to a power with which you are at war. (The presence of a surface warship
belonging to a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war doesn’t make
a sea zone hostile.) pg. 8

The friendly/hostile state of the sea zone has no bearing on combat. That is relevant only to movement.

@Seath thanks for your quick reply.

@Pinch1 yes i know that video but it demands huge US resources so by doing that you are abandoning the Pacific and Axis can easily repulse the US landings. Plus they can destroy a portion of your fleet very easily.

but any planes attacking Rome still attack. Which sucks for them.

@Ichabod1862 said in Strict Neutrals - Planes Flying Through:

@Krieghund

I get you have been declared an official ruling somehow.

That would be because I was a developer and editor for the game.

I’ve been playing Triplea live a lot lately…gotten used to clicking “DOW on the strict neutrals.” That’s besides the situation really.

Triple A doesn’t get everything right. Some shortcuts are taken for whatever reason. Page 10 of the Rulebook is clear on this matter.

Your ruling to me I think eisegetes into the text a fuller meaning not intended.

Germany conducts combat moves into Turkey while simultaneously combat moving planes through Turkey, but due to the ruling this means they somehow really have to simultaneously respect their air space? Makes no sense which makes me think you exegeted into the rule book an unintended end state.

page. 11 Europe book. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.”

The point of the rule on page 11 is that you cannot simply fly planes through strict neutrals in general.

For your interpretation, the rule should say all air units no matter what until AFTER attacking it. Because I think they should be able to fly over it even if just 1 infantry attacks the same neutral territory. The point of the rule is you can’t fly through like ground cannot go into the pripet marshes.

Germany is attacking it with air units. Why the interpretation that other air units cannot simultaneously fly through? The rules intent is to prevent flying through when never and not attacking them in general.

It’s not a ruling, it’s the rule. The rule is straightforward as written. “Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it.” It says air units cannot fly over an unfriendly neutral, then provides an exception for attacking it. An air unit that is flying through a neutral territory is not attacking it, so it is not allowed. It may only fly into one to attack it. That is the intent of the rule. Any other interpretation is simply reading something into it that isn’t there.

Per page 11 of the Rulebook, once a neutral territory is invaded, it is no longer neutral, so the restriction no longer applies. However, since all combat movement is simultaneous, the restriction is not lifted until after the combat movement phase in which it was invaded.

I hope this clears things up.

@Pinch1

Thanks for the advice. I’ll look into it.

I’m going to say that I don’t really like that this strategy is as effective as it is. If Japan changed the J2 buy to 2CV+1TT even full Pacific naval buys by USA wouldn’t stop this half the time, although obviously that would weaken the ground attack.

My view is that the game is a little broken here.

UK helping defend USA should stop this strategy pretty dead with troops/planes dropped in Quebec but really, should they have to? The other possibility is UK/Anzac retake of the Philippines which would help USA income if they can hold it but distracting Japan from its objectives may be enough.

@Panther Thanks for clarifying. It may be best not to even include a carrier with a guest fighter when attacking.

@Olmate
Welcome to the forum.

The rulebook should be clarification enough (1940 Pac.2nd ed., page 15):
“A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and/or tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located on each island or coastal territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those territories.”

As you correctly stated this wording clearly doesn’t include fighters located on carriers in seazones.

Why should something not being part of the rules be explicitly stated in the rulebook? Or in any FAQ/Errata when the wording of the rule is clear enough? There are hundreds of House Rules that might fill what people are missing being included in game rules / rulebooks.

There of course exist player created variants of Global1940 that have scrambling from carriers included.