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.
Alpha 3 help
-
Hello All - it has been a long time since I have been on and a long time since we have played, thought I would ask for quick link to get Alpha 3 rules, since I will be playing a game soon…… any help would be greatly appreciated - yes, I am too lazy to search :)
Thanks!
-
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149
All the major alpha 3 changes are in green me think.
-
What are all the European neutrals for alpha 3 and Russia’s NO #2? Abbreviations will be fine
-
What are all the European neutrals for alpha 3 and Russia’s NO #2? Abbreviations will be fine
“3 IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.”
Def these:
Turk
Gre
Cre
Bul
Yugo
Swi
Spa
Por
Eir
Swe
Fin
Sar
Sic
Pol
Hun
Rom
Ger
sgr
wgr
Hol
Den
Nol
Alb
Nita
SitaMaybe these:
Lib
Tob
Iso
Eth
Kor
Jap
Iwo
Oki
For
Sia
Mar
Pau
Car
Msh
Hai -
Europe is definetly specific to the EUROPE map. so cancel Japan or any such places…
-
ya but i heard that when it says any ORIGINAL AXIS Territories. It means japan’s are valid. Europe applying to neutrals only. This was a bad NO anyway. Absolutely UNEEDED! If russia is able to claim these, the axis are about to lose unless japan was let loose.
-
I assume that if the russian NO included Japan, there would be a large paragraph explaining how this effects the Mongolian rule.
-
original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls
What part of IN EUROPE are you failing to understand?
-
It can be read that the “in Europe” qualifier applies to both original axis territories AND neutral territories, as you interpret it, meaning its only original axis territories IN EUROPE. Or it can be read that the “in Europe” qualifier applies only to the neutral territories since its after the word “or”. So it would mean all original axis territories on the entire board, in addition to only those neutral territories IN EUROPE!
Could be read either way in just that one sentence you quoted. And the Soviet Union certainly wanted to spread Communism in Asia just as much as it did in Europe so there’s a historical precedent for it to be interpreted the opposite way that you do Guargantua. Just sayn’
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24408.315
Here is a conversation about this topic in the questions thread. Does “in Europe” refer to the continent, or the map board.
-
original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls
What part of IN EUROPE are you failing to understand?
The part where i could of sworn i heard something about russia getting the 3 NO for korea aswell. DUH!
-
For the record, i did say MAYBE for the stuff outside of the continent, so there should be no reason to argue about original europe axis only or not.
-
@Young:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24408.315
Here is a conversation about this topic in the questions thread. Does “in Europe” refer to the continent, or the map board.
i think the continent, although initially i read it as board as well.
Suggested Topics
