Loading and unloading same turn on allied transports?

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Remove autodestruct rule for transports:

@shadowhawk

The thing is, those scenarios are far more unlikely than having defenseless transports, so if you’re playing with new players you’ll have to explain the “infinite dice” rule far more frequently than those stupid fake loopholes, which means the same amount of time is lost. I personally have only experienced those two scenarios you described maybe 10 times (probably less) in the 50-100 games I’ve played in my life (of all variants!)

If you have to explain someone that if there is only 1 side throwing dice they will win then you should not play those persons to begin with.

Thanks buddy, my transports will noncom with impunity from now on!

Also depends on IF:
UK brings in the extra Ftr and a Bmbr.

But as SH allready explained:
What is your goal with Italy. Stall as long as possible UK in the Med.?
Getting aggressiv?
Looking for NO’ s?
Or soften UK RN for the German Luftwaffe?

If you scramble with Italy or not reveals also your future Plans in the Med. :wink:

@Maddog77:

…
All other A&A games I own, the xport can at least defend with a roll of 1.

Yes, this has changed starting from Anniversary Edition.

As for Russia, there’s not much you can do against a good player.  Don’t spread yourself thin and don’t let your forces get divided and conquered.  For the most part buy inf plus art as needed.  In order to maximize Russia’s income (and especially if your opponent declares on G2), think about trying to capture as many +3 NOs (Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia, and there’s 2 more in Africa) as possible.  To achieve this, it’s a good idea to buy some additional mech/tanks on Russia 1 and take NW Persia on R2, Iraq on R3, and so on.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

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.

it says “and/or” and it is the most common way to phrase such a requirements in games.

for basic gramar;
a, b and c = a and b and c;
a,b or c = a or b or c;
a and/or b = means if you have a and b, its ok, if you have a, its ok, if you have b, its ok.
same way you can make a list.

“russia always falls unless germany takes london first then russia can hang on for a long time”

Yeah I don’t think you can toss out a blanket statement like that. There is a lot that the allies can do to stall the German onslaught, then turn things around. The allies (UK) need to hold places like Persia to allow air traffic into Moscow, maybe even carrier planes fly into Russia. UK filtering ground units up from India/Egypt to hold the back door, pressure/landings in Europe to force Germany to spend income in defense instead of only on the eastern front etc…

It’s not easy, and takes a concentrated effort. Sometimes it comes down to the final battle for Moscow, but the allies can make it a last desperate move for Germany. Even if successful what did it cost the axis, and do they have good position. Are the allies closing in ready to liberate the Russians right away, who has Italy, hell maybe the French are even being liberated (the later would be strange from what we’ve seen, but it could happen).