Questions about A&A Europe 1940?

@always-wanderer

Great!

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

@Gargantua:

The rulebook is half clear.  It states that all combat moves must end in combat on Page #13
Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious
assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or
air units that may be needed to support it in the case that
defending air units are scrambled (see �Scramble,� page16).

My interpretation of that is scramble or no scramble, or even no airbase, I can move whatever I want in the combat phase to a friendly seazone to support that invasion.

Your interpretation is incorrect.  You may only move units that will participate in or support the amphibious assault into a friendly sea zone.  Air and sea units that will participate in the assault include transports offloading land units, battleships and/or cruisers bombarding, and possibly a warship to escort the transports (if needed because of an enemy sub that will be ignored - bombarding battleships and/or cruisers can fulfill this role).  Supporting units can include any type of air or sea unit desired, but can only be moved there if necessary due to the possibility of a defending scramble - there being both an operative enemy air base and eligible air units present.

As others have pointed out, the same criteria apply when determining whether units beginning the turn in the sea zone may move out of it during combat movement.  Such units restricted from moving out in noncombat movement are those that were actually involved in combat and transports that offloaded.

thx

@Celvus:

Thanks for the quick Answer Elrood! :-)

I Still find this Rule a little Strange. So the Allied Fraction just stands beside the Sea Fight watching the Battle and drinking some Beer?.  :|

Well, if that helps, imagine a vast seazone where the UK DD and Russian Sub are not in some battle group but actually far away from each other.  :-)

@Celvus:

Anyway since we play by the Rules we have to respect that. :-)

Good choice, there is nothing against house rules, but I would not mess with something integral like that. The befits of mixed fleets are already crazily good.

for example. UK / US fleets mass in SZ109 or 110. You think Berlin is save since you have a DD in SZ112 and few troops in Denmark, and have not many troops in Berlin (may be even none).
Then:
US fleet takes Denmark and after that UK goes into baltic sea and attacks Berlin, killing Germany most likely with that move. - Axis have no way to interact between US and UK moving… so its really nasty.

That happened to more than one inexperienced player, since it takes some time to “see” these possible scenarios.  :wink:
Just to let you see the possibilities

@BluGerman:

how did the game turn out?

Unfortunately, I didn’t get to finish it. A lot of things have been happening to me lately, has kept me from playing, so I decided to give it up till things settle down. Thanks for your advice and help my friend.

The next time I try, I let you know.

Thanks again for your help!

John

@Zallomallo:

@Zcion:

Quick clarification:

in before mentioned case, UK income 8+5 from NO, 4 ger subs in sz109 and 1 in sz119.
would uk loose 8 or 10 ipc due to convoy disruption?

afaik you cant convoy disrup NO?

many thx
Zcion

Correct, disruption is capped by the surrounding territories’ income.

Well, it’s capped by the total value of each convoy zone’s adjacent spaces, which can technically exceed income collected from those territories.  But you’re correct in that disruption does not affect National Objectives or at least does not affect the 40 on West US.

However, I’m not certain of the timing of convoy vs objectives and whether convoy disruption affects total income after objectives are collected.  Convoys can only affect values of territories, but since they can exceed income you’d collect from territories (by the double dips similar to 109/119), I don’t know whether than can dig a little into objectives.  Based on the Pac40 west US errata, it would seem no but this is not specifically addressed by the errata, which clarified that WUS was not worth 40, it was only worth 10, and could only be blocked up to 10.

So, as long as britain is making an additional 2 ipcs income through other territories, if sz109 and sz119 are fully blocked, Britain will lose 10 ipcs (8 for 109 and 2 for 119).  If Britain is making less than 10 IPCs in income before national objectives, they collect 0 for those their territorial income, and then collect national objective ipcs.

However, it’s VERY rare indeed that the UK does not still collect from an african or canadian territory that would put its territorial income over 10, in which case, if sc109 and 119 are fully blocked, they lose 10 IPCS.

Plus Germany has a little extra incentive to make sure they keep it with the new NO.  Taking Norway and building an IC there won’t be the sure thing it’s always been up to now, but yes, if the US can pull it off it would be a major shift in power.