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)
-
anzac 1 - infantry, aa gun offloads onto java in noncom - tripleA allows it, but is this allowed?
-
to clarify, there was no J1 dow.
-
Yes, that is allowed
-
-
Yes.
It’s a friendly territory -
…however it will not claim the territory.
-
-
…however it will not claim the territory.
that’s what i was wondering - thanks
And it’s not what you asked!
-
…however it will not claim the territory.
that’s what i was wondering - thanks
And it’s not what you asked!
absolutely correct - sorry - guess krieg read my mind! :lol:
-
Yes, that is allowed
Could a lone aa offload to an orange java?
you just would not claim the territory(and income). Would still be Dutch.
-
If the USSR while at peace with Japan moves into Korea when occupied by the USA who is at war with Japan, what happens if Japan attacks Korea?
-
If the USSR is at peace with Japan, then they couldn’t have moved into allied occupied Korea in the first place, as they were not yet part of the allies on the Pacific half of the board.
-
Right, USSR would have to declare war on Japan to move into USA controlled Korea.
If this is the case, and Japan attacks USA controlled Korea with USSR units in it, nothing happens with the pact or Mongolia.
The Mongolians only join Russia if Japan attacks a USSR controlled territory bordering Mongolia.The Mongolia, Neutral, and Dutch questions just keep pouring in. I made a thread trying to lay out these rules in a different way, in an attempt to make them more understandable. You can read them here. Maybe I should ask a Mod to sticky this thread. Go to the first couple posts of this thread. I believe the correct answers to both Boldfresh and Karl’s questions can be found in them.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.15 -
Right, USSR would have to declare war on Japan to move into USA controlled Korea.
Talk about your double standards! Italy can attack Russia with impunity while Germany reinforces without being at war with Russia, but Russia cannot reinforce the United States without going to war with Japan. :P (On Japanese soil that is.)
-
There is simply zero reason why USSR should’nt declear war on Japan turn 1 :-)
-
Exactly. It benefits Russia (and future US movements) to declare war immediately on Japan even if there are no combat moves planned on R1.
-
A question about retreats and suicide missions:
Imagine two of my fighters start at my airbase in Dutch Guinea. They fly five spaces to SZ 6. It is possible because my empty carrier moves there, too. Along with 10 Battleships or something. Imagine further that for some reason I occupied Korea. Now the battle begins because there are 123 enemy ships.
May I retreat my Carrier? What happens to my planes?
I suppose the planes will be taken out of the fight, but remain in the same zone? They will die? They are not allowed to move to Korea as, say, units scrambling and using their home base are allowed to? I am allowed to retreat the carrier even though that will doom the fighters? I cannot retreat the battleships and leave the carrier (or the planes) fighting?
-
A question about retreats and suicide missions:
Imagine two of my fighters start at my airbase in Dutch Guinea. They fly five spaces to SZ 6. It is possible because my empty carrier moves there, too.
Actually, your carrier is not required to go to Z6 in combat move. It must only be POSSIBLE to get there in noncombat movement. If there are planes surviving and the carrier can get there in noncombat (may not be able, if an attack failed to clear the way), then you are required to send as many carriers as necessary to pick up survivors. If you CAN pick them up, you MUST.
Along with 10 Battleships or something. Imagine further that for some reason I occupied Korea. Now the battle begins because there are 123 enemy ships.
May I retreat my Carrier?
Yes
What happens to my planes?
splish-splash they are taking a bath in Z6
I suppose the planes will be taken out of the fight, but remain in the same zone?
Right
They will die?
Only the pilots will die. The planes will sink to the bottom of the ocean. :wink:
They are not allowed to move to Korea as, say, units scrambling and using their home base are allowed to?
Correct, not allowed to move any more. It is on DEFENSE that planes get a movement point to land after being displaced from a carrier or scramble or intercept, what have you. Not on offense.
I am allowed to retreat the carrier even though that will doom the fighters?
Yes
I cannot retreat the battleships and leave the carrier (or the planes) fighting?
No. Everything must retreat together.
See my first comment. You do not have to move the carrier into Z6 to join the battle in the first place. But if you retreat, the planes will be stuck in Z6 with nowhere to land and will be forfeited (because they have 0 remaining movement after flying the full 5 spaces)
Please feel free to ask follow up questions if you need -
I think he was saying to move the carrier specifically so he could retreat it later and NOT have one available to retrieve the fighters.
Given Gamer’s response, I am going to say it is legal because the carrier was available for landing at the time the combat movement phase ended, just because he were “forced” to retreat it does not negate it being available at the end of the combat movement phase as a valid landing zone for the planes.
-
@Cmdr:
I think he was saying to move the carrier specifically so he could retreat it later and NOT have one available to retrieve the fighters.
I don’t know about that, but the reason for moving the carrier to Z6 is irrelevant, I think
Given Gamer’s response, I am going to say it is legal because the carrier was available for landing at the time the combat movement phase ended, just because he were “forced” to retreat it does not negate it being available at the end of the combat movement phase as a valid landing zone for the planes.
Yes, it is certainly legal to combat move the carrier to Z6 and then retreat it. But the planes will be stuck in Z6 and will not be able to move one more space to land on the retreated carrier.
It would be available for landing space for planes if it is undamaged, however the planes that moved to Z6 using all 5 movement points CANNOT follow the carrier and land on it. They are out of fuel.
Suggested Topics
