Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
Global Homebrew Setup Charts
-
Ok, here is something I came up with for the political situations. The main idea here is to use this as a quick reference, not to completely replace the rulebook. I know that I took some liberties by not including some fundamental rules in here, but I think all of the main situations that directly affect gameplay are included. Let me know if you like this layout, or if something in here needs to be fixed that could affect gameplay. Thanks again!
This looks excellent. Was expecting a few sentences for each power, but this looks much better
-
BTW, which rules did you not include in the political chart
-
Printed it out…
6 russian inf in Amur missing
6 russian inf in Sakha missing
6 russian inf in Buryata missing -
Checked the complete European setup.
There is one american airbase and one american naval base too much in Central USA.
-
6 russian inf in Amur missing
6 russian inf in Sakha missing
6 russian inf in Buryata missingThere is one american airbase and one american naval base too much in Central USA.
Thanks, these have been fixed. All of the changes so far to the cards have been fixed and posted to the web page. Also, I finished up the Political Situations reference and posted that as well. Let me know what you think about it. Sorry about the mistakes, like I said, it’s been real busy around here lately!
-
My understanding form Krieg was that Dutch territories are taken during the non combat phase by either ANZAC / UK as the other “pro” neutrals.
-
My understanding form Krieg was that Dutch territories are taken during the non combat phase by either ANZAC / UK as the other “pro” neutrals.
I was under the impression that the takeover part had to be done in the combat phase. Correct me if I’m wrong, though.
EDIT: Ok, I went back and reviewed the clarifications on the Dutch, and have modified the chart to reflect a UK/ANZAC land unit takeover during the non-combat phase.
If I tried making these without posting them here for all of you to comb over, they would be a mess! Thanks for all the input!
-
just printed mine out and they look great. thanks again!
Suggested Topics
