AA42 Questions & Answers

[KaLeu]

I can imagine a situation where a player might exploit this rule. Say that you have 36 IPC on hand and can only place 8 units, then you could buy 7 infantry and 3 tanks, and await the combat results before deciding which units to place.
Admittedly, this is rather far-fetched and unlikely to occur in practical play.

[Crimson_Raptor]

@Krieghund:

It must be in the rules because there are other alternatives for handling the situation.  The player making the error could simply have been penalized by losing the unplaceable units, or they could have been held in reserve for placement in a later turn.

That is very true.  For good sportmanship though, it would make sense not to penalize the player for an error like that.  I wouldn’t agree with the purchased units being held in reserve, because the opposing players would see this and could purchase to counter what you have to place accordingly.

@Herr:

…imagine… you have 36 IPC on hand and can only place 8 units, then you could buy 7 infantry and 3 tanks, and await the combat results before deciding which units to place…this is …unlikely to occur in practical play.

Here’s the situation I have been running into:

Germany has 40 IPC.

2 Battleships are purchased costing 20 IPC each.

Combat occurs and 8 Tanks are destroyed.

Germany now realizes the Battleships are not needed, and so returns them to get the 40 IPC in order to possibly purchase 8 Tanks on its next turn.

According to the rulebook, this unmobilization of units cannot be allowed because Germany has the ability to place the 2 Battleships, correct?

I’ve always thought that once you have purchased the units, i.e. a Battleship, the keel has been laid but the ship is not complete.

After a losing combat, Hitler orders the Battleships to be diassembled and scrapped and the metal is to be shipped back to Germany to be used to used for more Panther Tanks.

Thus, when you mobilize the units after the Non-Combat Movement phase, the units are now completed (some 3 to 6 months after the keel was laid).

[KaLeu]

@Crimson_Raptor:

Germany has 40 IPC.

2 Battleships are purchased costing 20 IPC each.

Combat occurs and 8 Tanks are destroyed.

Germany now realizes the Battleships are not needed, and so returns them to get the 40 IPC in order to possibly purchase 8 Tanks on its next turn.

According to the rulebook, this unmobilization of units cannot be allowed because Germany has the ability to place the 2 Battleships, correct?

Yes, that’s correct - you must place the battleships. You’re right that in reality, it may be possible to reassign some of the materials (though not all of them) to the production of different units, but the rules won’t allow that. Therefore, in the example that I gave, it was financially possible to buy all the units mentioned, but they couldn’t be placed due to production limits, and you can choose which units to place and which ones to return.

So here’s another totally unlikely scenario abusing the rule:

• Japan has conquered India, and has two fighters there
• There’s a US fleet in SZ60, and Japan wants to attack it
• Japan has 38 IPC and buys 8 infantry and an aircraft carrier
• Japan attacks SZ60 using the fighters from India
• If Japan wins in SZ60, it will build the carrier there to land the surviving planes, plus 7 infantry
• If Japan loses and the planes are destroyed, it will return the carrier and build 8 infantry
  :roll:

Alright, I’m totally ruining the intent of this thread by dreaming up crazy exploits instead of providing clear explanations. My bad!  :-D

[Hobbes]

@Crimson_Raptor:

@Krieghund:

It must be in the rules because there are other alternatives for handling the situation.  The player making the error could simply have been penalized by losing the unplaceable units, or they could have been held in reserve for placement in a later turn.

That is very true.  For good sportmanship though, it would make sense not to penalize the player for an error like that.  I wouldn’t agree with the purchased units being held in reserve, because the opposing players would see this and could purchase to counter what you have to place accordingly.

@Herr:

…imagine… you have 36 IPC on hand and can only place 8 units, then you could buy 7 infantry and 3 tanks, and await the combat results before deciding which units to place…this is …unlikely to occur in practical play.

Here’s the situation I have been running into:

Germany has 40 IPC.

2 Battleships are purchased costing 20 IPC each.

Combat occurs and 8 Tanks are destroyed.

Germany now realizes the Battleships are not needed, and so returns them to get the 40 IPC in order to possibly purchase 8 Tanks on its next turn.

According to the rulebook, this unmobilization of units cannot be allowed because Germany has the ability to place the 2 Battleships, correct?

I’ve always thought that once you have purchased the units, i.e. a Battleship, the keel has been laid but the ship is not complete.

After a losing combat, Hitler orders the Battleships to be diassembled and scrapped and the metal is to be shipped back to Germany to be used to used for more Panther Tanks.

Thus, when you mobilize the units after the Non-Combat Movement phase, the units are now completed (some 3 to 6 months after the keel was laid).

The question is game mechanics and fairness, not real life possibilities.

When you purchase the units, you don’t know the results of your combat phase (how many units you’ll lose, if you’ll take key territories, etc.).
If you’re changing your purchases after combat takes place then you’ll have an unfair advantage over your opponent since you’re actually adjusting your buy (even if it is only to receive the IPCs back) to the result of your combat phase.
It can be argued that a big mistake had been done already with the purchase and that changing the order is a way to minimize the error but you learn how to play better when you suffer the full consequences of such mistakes.

[Crimson_Raptor]

@Hobbes:

It can be argued that a big mistake had been done already with the purchase and that changing the order is a way to minimize the error but you learn how to play better when you suffer the full consequences of such mistakes.

This is very true, although, I saw the non-mobilization of units to be a severe disadvantage even after absorbing such combat losses as well.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

It’s a severe disadvantage only if it was not intended……  It has happened to me that an opponent over built as England, but not somebody who plays the game more than once or twice a year.  He saved his money to purchase an instant fleet and didn’t build land units to go with the transports on a previous turn.  I initially let him get his over build IPCs back, but the strategic disadvantage was huge, so huge I let him retroactively build some land units, but I’m a good sport that way.

Now had he tried exploit Herr KaLeun laid out with the 8 Inf/CV, I’d probably punch him in the mouth, or at the very least not offer him a refill on his rye and ginger…

[Xander]

Just wanting to verify something…

Sea fleets from different nations don’t defend together right?

Just asking because I’ve been reading a lot of allied strat and I see combining UK/US fleets often.

Now, I know that US fighters on UK carrier will defend the carrier if G attacks the AC.

But would a US battleship defend a UK battleship if G attacks the UK battleship?

No right?

Side question, BB=Battleship right? And… why 2 Bs? Just don’t want to use BS?

[Xander]

Nvm the main question about Sea defense, I just misread the manual I think

[Hobbes]

@Xander:

Side question, BB=Battleship right? And… why 2 Bs? Just don’t want to use BS?

BB is the US Navy classification symbol for Battleships. CV for carriers, etc.

[White Raven]

Hey all,

on p. 24 of the rulebook (unit profiles) it says that artillery will support infantry and increase it’s attack to 2. My question is: when an artillery unit supports an infantry unit to attack with 2, can it also attack with 2 for itself? In that case it would fire 2 times, 1 in support of the infantry and 1 for its own attack, is this possible?

[Krieghund]

The infantry and artillery each fire once.  Each unit hits on a 2 or less.

[White Raven]

Thanks!

[A Former User]

Hello.

I have a few questions. They’re probably pretty basic, but I’d still like to know that I’m in the right. For the questions, let’s assume that all airplanes are making legal moves. I’m fairly sure I’ve got that part down.

1. Is it possible to attack ships in a sea zone with only airplanes? The rulebook says “Both [fighters and bombers] can attack in sea zones.” However, there’s not any clarification as to whether they can do so alone or not. For the time being, I presume that this means that it is allowed, but I wanted to check. For example, if I’m playing as Germany and there is a UK battleship (and two transports) in SZ 5, can I attack those with only bombers and fighters based in Europe? If so, are the transports destroyed as normal if the airplane force is victorious and at least one plane remains in the attacking force after the battleship is destroyed?

2. In a similar way, can an airplane-only attack “clear” units from an island without taking it? For example, if fighters from a US-based carrier were to attack one infantry on Borneo, does normal combat result? I do know that if the fighters are successful, they cannot take possession of the territory.

Thank you in advance for your help.

[Mallery29]

1. Any plane, any time! And yes, the trans go away assuming you survive the onslaught.

2. Yes, but why would you risk losing a fighter?

[A Former User]

Thank you for your response, Mallery29. I don’t really have an answer to your question; you make a good point. It was just for reference, I guess.

[Mallery29]

Only time I would risk a plane is if I were UK/US and I saw I could open a hole in German lines for the Russians to exploit…being that it’s an island, unless its UK or Japan, it ain’t worth it.

[Hobbes]

@Mallery29:

2. Yes, but why would you risk losing a fighter?

Sometimes a ground unit can be more valuable than a fighter. Imagine that the Germans only have 1 armor left in Africa and their Med fleet has been destroyed. Wouldn’t you send 2 fighters with the UK to destroy it?

[Mallery29]

As I’ve said before, the Axis can win w/o Africa.  I’d hope that I’d be using those planes to poop all over Stalin.  You know Germany’s goal is Moscow, not Africa.  Hell, I’d rather lose them in an escort in an IB raid again UK/Russian than waste them on Africa.n  Germany focusing on Africa is like taking your eye off the 8 ball in pool…  if you’re not careful, you’ll scratch.

[Mallery29]

Don’t take my “you know….” statement as sarcasm, but stating fact.  I know you’ve played a lot, so I just wanted make sure that was clear (I know how things on the usenet can be misinterpeted.

[kaptinknaughts]

Hello I have just recently purchased this game and started playing with a group of friend, which we all love. I just have one question about spawning new sea units in hostile territory. It says in the rulebook that you can do this, but if this is true then you could never make an amphib assault on a country like Germany for instance if you were the UK. I ran into this problem last night as i had a major fleet amphib assaulting berlin but beings germay goes before the UK he would just spawn one sea unit there to stop my amphib assault. This just doesnt seem correct to me. Plz help, could be the whole deciding factor in the war!