AAG40 Alpha 3 Neutral Territories clarification

Krieghund will probably come along and give you the official ruling…but I think that’s how it works.

@ozimek1:

I realize that the AA guns are more effective when definding in the west against Allied “liberation” attempts. The big question is whether the tempo gain of bringing them east is worth it, and ultimately more efficient.

What I mean is: Yes, an AA-gun is better at defending a stationary stack than advancing with the aim of possibly taking some very random pot-shots at enemy planes. That is pretty obvious. � BUT they happen to start on the board in round one, and they typically won’t be needed in the west for the first several rounds. Bringing them east from the beginning will add some momentum to Barbarossa, but at the cost of a less attractive puchase mix during the mid-game if they are to be replaced by newly purchased AA-guns or their equivalent in infantry. Is the boost worth that downside?

There’s no yes or no answer to that.  Even on G1, where I move the aa guns depends on what went down on G1.  I’ll still be making those choices on G2-G3, depending on how the game is playing out.  The aa guns in the East have limited utility because they have no attack value–their utility is to lessen Russia’s odds of a successful counter-attack.  Whether Germany needs them out there depends on what Germany and Russia are doing.

I would avoid buying new aa guns mid-game as Germany.  With that in mind, I’d keep half the aa guns back, barring exceptional circumstances.  There’s the possibility of moving east until G3, and then turning back, in time to protect Berlin.

@BigBadBruce:

You mean you typed a set of rules with OOB rules and this link?
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167

My group and I never play the Europe or Pacific games on their own, just together as Global. We became constantly frustrated when reffering to 2 different manuals for a rule clarification, not to mention a print out of the latest Alpha modifications. So, I began a cut and paste project that combined both manuals, while adding and deleteing changes made after Alpha+2. Even though I am giving away copies of my document, I can’t post it here due to copy right issues.

If the US is forced to split it’s income their could come a time where it could haved saved the day at Hawaii or get much needed support to a victory city in Europe but it’s hands will have been tied because of polictial rules and the Axis will win.

To be honest I don’t really want to win that way.  I respect your position but I do disagree with it.  I would love to see the Axis made a little stronger but I am actually feel pretty comfortable with the USA staying as is for the most part.

Thx!

Megaeinstein,

Which rule are your talking about?
A) AAE40>page 18>General Combat>Step 2. Submarine Surpise Strike ?
B) AAE40>page 30>Submarines>parg 2>Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement?
C) Something else?

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense now

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I want to clarify.
The rules say that an “allied” destroyer in the same sea zone that you attack will not cancel the abilities of enemy subs since any force attacks alone, Allied forces can only defend together.  I assume this applies to scrambling as well.  Here’s my situation:
The US has a large fleet occupying SZ 6.  Japan has fighters on it’s airbase.  ANZAC wants to amphibiously assault Korea.  If the Japanese fighters scramble, will they only be fighting the ANZAC ships?
Even though the US and ANZAC are Allies, since ANZAC is on the attack, the US ships are basically idle during this action, is that correct?