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 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
that was fast !
thanks -
Ok, another one (i know the answer, but i want my oponent to be able to see it).
There is Japanese troops + planes in Philippines , and a big US + UK fleet in sz35
Now Anzac wants to make an amphibious assault in Phi with 1tr fully loaded, some planes, and a cruiser.
If Japan decides to scramble, do they only have to fight the attacking Anzac units, or do they have to fight the entire ally’s fleet in sz35 ?
-
Hi AxisPlayer: Only the player whose go it is: Anzac.
But I understand if you are waiting on a deputy’s confirmation. -
Allied units in a seazone only defend together, they attack only on their own turns. The Japanese are defending in this scenario (even whilst scrambling), and therefore only have to defend against the Anzac.
-
Hi. If allies (UK) attack , let’s say, Germany in SZ in which there is already another allies ship (example: US submarine) can he remove that unit as casualties ?
And can I use US destroyer to detect subs while attacking with UK planes?
Thnx.
We play that way but i think it ain’t by the book. -
Allies only defend in an area together, they never attack together.
So you can’t remove that US sub as a casualty, as it is not taking part in the battle.And your ally’s destroyers does not detect subs if you’re attacking.
-
Thank you, we will fix it then.
We understood something wrong. -
In the Pacific board, the USSR and Japan aren’t at war yet. Japan has taken India. Can Soviet tanks move into Persia in the Europe board and block Japanese movement, since the Soviets are at war on the Europe board?
-
In the Pacific board, the USSR and Japan aren’t at war yet. Japan has taken India. Can Soviet tanks move into Persia in the Europe board and block Japanese movement, since the Soviets are at war on the Europe board?
Yes. But you do realize it doesn’t block japan from attacking persia. There’s no punishment for Japan or Russia when they declare war on each other, and you don’t need to make an attack to declare war. So it doesn’t “block” movement for more than the turn it takes Japan to smash through the Russian line in persia.
The only time the mongolians are affected is when it’s a territory adjacent to mongolia (or korea). So as long as they aren’t skirmishing in manchuria, korea, or the soviet far east, they can beat each other up as much as they want and declare war on the first turn if they want to.
There’s actually no reason that Russia would not declare war on Japan on R1, because it opens their territories up for US landings. If Japan’s going to attack, they’ll attack. The state of war between them is irrelevant prior to Japan’s attacks, so why be at peace? No reason at all.
-
Great answer as usual Kcdzim. Thank you.
-
Can a Soviet Mech Infantry in Caucasus activate both North West Persia and Persia in the same move?
Can a Tank? -
You can’t Blitz a neutral and you have to end your move there.
See Page 10, A&A Europe 1940 rule book.
-
ผลบอลสดตลอด24ชั่วโมง
-
china can’t attack french indo china with a fighter can he?
-
The China rules state that their fighter is under the same restrictions as their land units.
The fighter cannot move into territories that China is not allowed to move into.
Not even for an attack that’s intended for the fighter to land into Chinese territory afterward. -
I only now became aware of the existence of this thread! Would have been nice if you had posted something to that effect in the previous FAQ thread, IL.
-
Just checked through the whole thread and I saw a question similar to this, but not quite answered.
If either Germany or Italy, but not both, declares war on the USSR and on the next Russian turn, the Russians have the ability to attack a territory owned by the power they are at war with, but is occupied with units belonging to both Germany and Italy, are they allowed to make the attack? If so, do both the Axis players defend, which allows the Russians to kill units belonging to a power they are not at war with? These cases are covered pretty well for situations at sea, but not on land. I’m not interested in why this situation would be allowed to occur (clearly the Russians would just solve everything by issuing a DoW on the other power), just do the rules allow for this to be possible and if so, what happens.
-
Just checked through the whole thread and I saw a question similar to this, but not quite answered.
If either Germany or Italy, but not both, declares war on the USSR and on the next Russian turn, the Russians have the ability to attack a territory owned by the power they are at war with, but is occupied with units belonging to both Germany and Italy, are they allowed to make the attack? If so, do both the Axis players defend, which allows the Russians to kill units belonging to a power they are not at war with? These cases are covered pretty well for situations at sea, but not on land. I’m not interested in why this situation would be allowed to occur (clearly the Russians would just solve everything by issuing a DoW on the other power), just do the rules allow for this to be possible and if so, what happens.
The only attacks where units belonging to a potential defending power are going to be in naval combat as seazones aren’t controlled, only occupied. That’s why units at war with each other can occupy the same seazone under various instances.
Territory combat is different: all units defend in a territory, and you cannot attack a territory that contains a unit belonging to a power that you’re not at war with, even if there are other units there that you are at war with.
-
Territory combat is different: all units defend in a territory, and you cannot attack a territory that contains a unit belonging to a power that you’re not at war with, even if there are other units there that you are at war with.
I don’t see anything in the rules that says this would be the case. A hostile territory is defined as being owned by a power with which you are at war. The definition of combat movement says I can move into any hostile territory. I can’t find any exceptions for hostile territory being co-occupied by neutral powers, which is why I am asking.
-
Territory combat is different: all units defend in a territory, and you cannot attack a territory that contains a unit belonging to a power that you’re not at war with, even if there are other units there that you are at war with.
I don’t see anything in the rules that says this would be the case. A hostile territory is defined as being owned by a power with which you are at war. The definition of combat movement says I can move into any hostile territory. I can’t find any exceptions for hostile territory being co-occupied by neutral powers, which is why I am asking.
Axis and Allies Pacific page 18 sidebar.
Suggested Topics
