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)
-
@seththenewb:
The admiral responsible for leaving a million transports by themselves and ripe for a lone sub ought to be put in for an award for by his opponents. Also, that sub must’ve been modded for unlimited ammo. Â :wink:
It’s called the Infinity Torpedo. :P
But then, there have always been silly rules that make no sense, but seem to keep the game units from being something other than insanely over powered (except Classic Heavy Bombers. :P )
-
It is just for game balance purposes.
-
England and France are allies in Europe from the start of the game. Does this imply that England may move into French Indo-China Burma and/or New Hebrides (that cruddy little island group NO ONE probably ever uses) with impunity? (ANZAC to for that matter since they literally are part of the British Empire I would assume, just a separate economy?)
For that matter, assuming they can (and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able too) what if England is in there, does Japan have to declare war on FIC to get them out? (Like that’s a deterrent! Oh no, I have to declare war on a power that has at most ONE destroyer here!)
-
Any Ally who is at war (the caveat for USSR and USA) (but of course, not China) can move into FIC, so this includes ANZ and UK Pacific
You must declare war on a power that has units in a territory (not a sea zone) to combat move into it, so yes Japan has to declare war on the UK/ANZ to invade FIC when a UK/ANZ unit is in FIC.
-
Does Russia get the 3 bonus IPCs for controlling Axis provinces in Africa also or just Europe. Can I get the extra bonus for Russia by taking over the worthless Italian provinces in Africa? I did this in a game and Russia is making mad loot from it. Did I read the rules wrong?
Thanks,
-
Does Russia get the 3 bonus IPCs for controlling Axis provinces in Africa also or just Europe.
Africa too
Can I get the extra bonus for Russia by taking over the worthless Italian provinces in Africa?
YES
I did this in a game and Russia is making mad loot from it. Did I read the rules wrong?
Thanks,
Crazy, isn’t it!? Don’t forget Sardinia and Sicily! :lol:
Seriously though, if you send Russian ground unit(s) to Africa (or Sardinia/Sicily) and can manage to take control of these territories with Russia, you earned your money.
Also, watch out that you don’t take it over just a turn or two before losing Moscow…
You do know the pro-Axis neutrals count as well, right?
Iraq, Bulgaria, Finland… -
For an amphibious assault from a seazone with an enemy sub present, would an escorting sub suffice to allow the invasion go through? Or does it have to be a surface warship with an attack value?
-
any warship, period. that is everything but a transport. now if a scramble occurs, then you need something that can kill the sub to be present.
-
As a tag along to this, does a carrier count in this case? Ie are either of these possible
enemy sub in sz42 - attacker brings in a loaded transport accompanied by a sub of the same nation to take Java
enemy sub in sz42 - attacker brings in a loaded transport accompanied by a carrier of the same nation to take Java
-
Bold, I’m not sure about the sub but I’m pretty sure that your carrier isn’t enough.
Transports
Cost: 7
Attack: 0
Defense: 0
Move: 2
Unit Characteristics
No Combat Value: Even though a transport can attack
or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a
combat value of 0. This means that a transport can’t fire
in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps.
Transports may not attack without being accompanied
by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are
conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea
zone that is free of enemy submarines.Page 32 of Europe Manual 2nd ED
-
A carrier does not have attack power.
-
Here’s the catch though. It says that they HAVE to be accompanied by at least 1 unit with an attack value UNLESS they’re doing an amphibious assault from a friendly SZ that is free of enemy subs. It’s there in black and white, I’m not sure how much clearer it can get.
@seththenewb:
No Combat Value: Even though a transport can attack
or defend, either alone or with other units, it has a
combat value of 0. This means that a transport can’t fire
in the attacking units’ or the defending units’ fire steps.
Transports may not attack without being accompanied
by at least 1 unit with an attack value, unless they are
conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea
zone that is free of enemy submarines.It’s obviously not talking about conducting naval combat for the second part because an enemy sub alone does not make a seazone hostile.
-
Im sure krieg can explain it :-)
-
Im almost certain that krieg will say the operative word is “attack”. Ie the transport is not attacking if unloading in a zone with an enemy sub and an escorting acc.
-
I will admit I don’t know what the heck it’s talking about on page 32 with the part you put in bold.
But you have to pay attention to page 16 also, under “transports” where it more clearly than page 32 is referring to the case of submarines potentially blocking amphibious assaults by unescorted transports.
The requirement on page 16 merely says WARSHIP
A carrier is a warship, and so is a sub.
-
Because I don’t know what in the world the sentence on page 32 is talking about exactly, you will have to wait for Krieghund for the authoritative answer on this.
If a carrier doesn’t work to overcome the sub block, then he has some explaining to do about page 16.
-
But you’re ignoring the part that specifically precludes you from trying your amphibious assault.
unless they are
conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea
zone that is free of enemy submarines.That part of the rule is pretty specific. ie, you can move them around unaccompanied during combat moves to conduct an assault, UNLESS you’re doing an assault that has an enemy sub. I’m not arguing your right to load your transports up and send them to whatever friendly seazone you want. But you HAVE to have a ship with an attack power present if you want to offload them in an amphibious assault. I have a sub protecting that sz and the ONLY warship you have within reach of me is a carrier with 0 attack. IE, you cannot conduct an amphibious assault into that terr until you fix this issue by either
1. Killing my sub (not possible with only a carrier and air available to you)
2. Convincing me to retreat said sub (ha, not likely!)
3. Or getting a ship with attack power in range to accompany the transport for an assault NEXT turn. -
Because I don’t know what in the world the sentence on page 32 is talking about exactly, you will have to wait for Krieghund for the authoritative answer on this.
If a carrier doesn’t work to overcome the sub block, then he has some explaining to do about page 16.
Well it kind of makes sense if you look at page 15
Aircraft Carriers
Although they don’t have an attack value and aren’t
represented on the battle strip, carriers can still participate
in an attack and can take hits, as long at least 1 unit with
an attack value attacks along with them.Carriers are NOT allowed to attack unless they’re accompanied by at least 1 unit with attack power, since subs can’t be hit by air you could make the argument that fighters don’t have an attack power in that situation.
Also, in the convoy raiding section, it says any warship in a convoy zone and then it goes on to actually specify that carriers are excluded. So it starts broad and then gets specific.
-
If a carrier doesn’t work to overcome the sub block, then he has some explaining to do about page 16.
Yea, it’s not really clear. Obviously I tend to think PG32 is the right answer for this situation, but he needs to clear things up either way he rules in this matter.
-
The operative word is attack. If I assault from a sea zone with only an enemy sub present with an escorting acc and no possible scramble then neither the trn or acc is attacking.
Suggested Topics
