@13thguardsriflediv:
One more question, if an attacking naval force is destroyed completely and the defense has stuff left is the attacking transport that carried units to be landed also destroyed?
Interestingly, in the same battle the defenders carrier got damaged and the planes had to escape to a neighbouring area, but couldn’t land in the area being attacked by the land forces (which would have been reinforced by those seaborne land units), right?
Yes to the first unless I am really reading this wrong, as they were part of the attack, and since transports auto die when in the same zone as enemy ships and unguarded, they are removed with the last attacker’s ship, as they are then unguarded thus destroyed.
For the second they are only allowed to move 1 space and it must be a friendly territory. The kicker to this is you dont move the planes until the noncombat phase, thus the land action would be over one way or the other, so if it is still yours, yes, land, if not the point is moot.
@13thguardsriflediv:
One more question, if an attacking naval force is destroyed completely and the defense has stuff left is the attacking transport that carried units to be landed also destroyed?
If the transports have the option of retreating, they are not defenseless, so they are not automatically destroyed. If they can retreat before they’re hit, they’ll survive. If they can’t retreat, they’re toast.
@13thguardsriflediv:
Interestingly, in the same battle the defenders carrier got damaged and the planes had to escape to a neighbouring area, but couldn’t land in the area being attacked by the land forces (which would have been reinforced by those seaborne land units), right?
If the defender wins the battle, the planes can land there afterward.
Quote from: 13thguardsriflediv on Today at 12:31:44 am
Can still neutral allies activate ‘pro allied neutrals’? I think they can.
No. (Kieghund)
Tip in regards to Russia, you can declare your self at war w/Japan R1 in the global game if you want to (w/o actually making an attack). This will allow you to gobble up pro axis or pro allied neutrals. Declaring war against Japan (or vise verse) has no negative effects, because they can go to war at any time anyway, and it doesn’t cause a domino effect with other powers.
That, of course, depends upon the terms of the nonaggression pact that you negotiated with Japan.
@13thguardsriflediv:
Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to ‘fake attack’ Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?
Yes. This is known as a “strafing attack”.
I’m surprised this is a rule. It boils down to Infantry get to move more than 1 space a turn on land. Not for me.
@13thguardsriflediv:
Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to ‘fake attack’ Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?
Yes. This is known as a “strafing attack”.
I’m surprised this is a rule. It boils down to Infantry get to move more than 1 space a turn on land. Not for me.
This move has been done since the 1980’s.(A&A Classic)
@13thguardsriflediv:
Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to ‘fake attack’ Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?
Yes. This is known as a “strafing attack”.
I’m surprised this is a rule. It boils down to Infantry get to move more than 1 space a turn on land. Not for me.
This move has been done since the 1980’s.(A&A Classic)
I’ll take your word for it but my dad started playing the game when it came out in 1986 and I played the game as a kid in the late 80’s/early 90’s and I’ve never heard of it until I read it on these forums.
PS. I should note that I never read the original A&A rulebook, learned by just playing the game. I assume my dad didn’t play with that rule for the same reason that I won’t. Free moves don’t make sense, you might as well say that after taking over a new territory after the combat phase, any or all units that moved during combat into the new territory may also move again during non-combat.
I learned the move from Don Rae’s assays. It was a move to get UK units into Russia’s capital, to help Russia live more rounds. To do it UK needed to send a unit there early in the game. Of course that meant weakening an already weak UK position somewhere else. Cause and effect. Nothing for free in A&A. :)
I learned the move from Don Rae’s assays. It was a move to get UK units into Russia’s capital, to help Russia live more rounds. To do it UK needed to send a unit there early in the game. Of course that meant weakening an already weak UK position somewhere else. Cause and effect. Nothing for free in A&A. :)
I know what you are saying but I don’t see how that rational justifies a free move. With that rational we could make a new tech called the instantaneous transportation machine, you can go from one zone to another that is 1 move too far for your unit to move but it’s okay because you weakened your former position.
@13thguardsriflediv:
Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to ‘fake attack’ Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?
Yes. This is known as a “strafing attack”.
Are you required to conduct at least one round of combat before you can retreat or can you retreat without firing a shot??
@Hellmutt:
@13thguardsriflediv:
Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to ‘fake attack’ Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?
Yes. This is known as a “strafing attack”.
Are you required to conduct at least one round of combat before you can retreat or can you retreat without firing a shot??
You have to do one round
I agree, free moves will allow players to cover ground at a rate that otherwise would not be acceptable. I know it isnt free moving, but I still dislike the idea if i get as I believe it works. I say nay nay.
The attack has privileges open to him that the defender does not have. But the attack may not retreat to all different territories. He must retreat to the same space.
Things have changed over the years. It used to be in an amphibious assault, there was no retreat option for any units (including aircraft). That led to longer boring stack fest games.
Rules were changed, thankfully.
@WILD:
Tip in regards to Russia, you can declare your self at war w/Japan R1 in the global game if you want to (w/o actually making an attack). This will allow you to gobble up pro axis or pro allied neutrals. Declaring war against Japan (or vise verse) has no negative effects, because they can go to war at any time anyway, and it doesn’t cause a domino effect with other powers.
I can’t find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?
Can, for example, the US spend money to build an airbase on a British space?
What about the two British incomes? Can one build a facility and place it on the other board?
Question:
if Japan is under attack from sea zone 6 and I don’t have a fleet, can I scramble a single fighter to prevent bombardment?
@13thguardsriflediv:
Is it legal to use units from Southern Germany and one from Romania to ‘fake attack’ Yugoslavia for one round, disengage and move the stack to Romania?
Yes. This is known as a “strafing attack”.
I’m surprised this is a rule. It boils down to Infantry get to move more than 1 space a turn on land. Not for me.
If Yugoslavia’s neutrals got 3-4 hits it would have been very expensive.
There is always a risk involved.
I can’t find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?
It’s implied by the fact that they are on opposite sides and that the terms of their relations are defined by the players.
Can, for example, the US spend money to build an airbase on a British space?
What about the two British incomes? Can one build a facility and place it on the other board?
No.
if Japan is under attack from sea zone 6 and I don’t have a fleet, can I scramble a single fighter to prevent bombardment?
Yes.
I can’t find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?
It’s implied by the fact that they are on opposite sides and that the terms of their relations are defined by the players.
It seems to me that Russia holds all the cards here.
a) They can move their 18 inf out of harms way R1 (before Japs turn).
b) Russia wants to be at war w/someone early (maybe w/o conflict) to take some of the pro neutrals (gets boring waiting for Germany).
c) Being at war w/someone is also part of their 5ipc NO.
d) Japan has many other problems on the table that are more pressing to be a real threat to the Siberian front early on.
e) If Jap backs off on Manchuria, Russia could be a problem (especially if US is anywhere near).
Russia has a lot of advantages to being at war early (at least a phony war).
Its really in Japans best interest to not be at war w/Russia, so it can make other attacks, and not have to worry about the Soviets (kinda like Pac40).
So why would the Russia player agree to anything w/Jap player. As I said the Russia player holds all the cards IMO, as long as you don’t do something stupid and loose those 18 Siberia inf. I would keep the Jap player guessing. The only way I would agree on cutting a deal is to give the Japs a false sense of security, then when their not paying attention pound them, but by that time you will have lost a chance at the 5ipc at war bonus, and not be getting to those neutrals.
@WILD:
It seems to me that Russia holds all the cards here.
a) They can move their 18 inf out of harms way R1 (before Japs turn).
b) Russia wants to be at war w/someone early (maybe w/o conflict) to take some of the pro neutrals (gets boring waiting for Germany).
c) Being at war w/someone is also part of their 5ipc NO.
d) Japan has many other problems on the table that are more pressing to be a real threat to the Siberian front early on.
e) If Jap backs off on Manchuria, Russia could be a problem (especially if US is anywhere near).Russia has a lot of advantages to being at war early (at least a phony war).
Its really in Japans best interest to not be at war w/Russia, so it can make other attacks, and not have to worry about the Soviets (kinda like Pac40).
So why would the Russia player agree to anything w/Jap player. As I said the Russia player holds all the cards IMO, as long as you don’t do something stupid and loose those 18 Siberia inf. I would keep the Jap player guessing. The only way I would agree on cutting a deal is to give the Japs a false sense of security, then when their not paying attention pound them, but by that time you will have lost a chance at the 5ipc at war bonus, and not be getting to those neutrals.
If I was Russia I’d declare war on Japan, move all my infantry to Sakha and only move them out should Amur or Siberia be taken, or if Manchuria or Korea are left particularly weak. Since there are absolutely NO repercussions for being at war with Japan, I don’t see why Russia wouldn’t declare war. You don’t have to actually attack Japan to be at war with them.
