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)
-
Just need a quick refresher with subs blocking a transports unloading and loading capability. I think it states that a sub can prevent a lone transport from loading or unloading during both noncombat and combat phases? My understanding is you need a ship present with the transport to negate this and can the ship be a sub? Thanks!
-
Just need a quick refresher with subs blocking a transports unloading and loading capability. I think it states that a sub can prevent a lone transport from loading or unloading during both noncombat and combat phases? My understanding is you need a ship present with the transport to negate this and can the ship be a sub? Thanks!
this only applies to trying to make a combat landing from an unescorted transport. during the combat movement phase undefended transports can ignore subs, as they also can in the noncombat phase. so loading of units in combat or noncombat and offloading in noncombat is unaffected by subs. the only thing you cannot do is make a landing from an unescorted transport if an enemy sub is in the sea zone.
-
Just need a quick refresher with subs blocking a transports unloading and loading capability. I think it states that a sub can prevent a lone transport from loading or unloading during both noncombat and combat phases? My understanding is you need a ship present with the transport to negate this and can the ship be a sub? Thanks!
this only applies to trying to make a combat landing from an unescorted transport. during the combat movement phase undefended transports can ignore subs, as they also can in the noncombat phase. so loading of units in combat or noncombat and offloading in noncombat is unaffected by subs. the only thing you cannot do is make a landing from an unescorted transport if an enemy sub is in the sea zone.
Cool thanks! Does a sub count as a legal “escort” for the transport to unload?
-
Just need a quick refresher with subs blocking a transports unloading and loading capability. I think it states that a sub can prevent a lone transport from loading or unloading during both noncombat and combat phases? My understanding is you need a ship present with the transport to negate this and can the ship be a sub? Thanks!
this only applies to trying to make a combat landing from an unescorted transport. during the combat movement phase undefended transports can ignore subs, as they also can in the noncombat phase. so loading of units in combat or noncombat and offloading in noncombat is unaffected by subs. the only thing you cannot do is make a landing from an unescorted transport if an enemy sub is in the sea zone.
Cool thanks! Does a sub count as a legal “escort” for the transport to unload?
yes
-
Can USA take Denmark during combat and cross the canal during non combat on the same turn? I know UK can cross it as soon as his turn comes.
-
@Cow:
Can USA take Denmark during combat and cross the canal during non combat on the same turn? I know UK can cross it as soon as his turn comes.
No. Page 9 of the rule book says:
If your side (but not necessarily your power) controlled a canal or narrow strait at the start of your turn, you may move sea units through it (you can’t use it in the same turn that you capture it).
If the USA took Denmark during combat, it was Axis-controlled at the start of the USA’s turn, so it can’t be crossed during non-combat.
-
Can you move into Japan seazone with fighters from carriers in your combat phase, saying you would land the fighters there when you move in with the carriers in your non combat phase? This would negate the Kamikaze token tremendously…
-
[q
uote author=Cephir link=topic=28562.msg1219919#msg1219919 date=1385939062]
Can you move into Japan seazone with fighters from carriers in your combat phase, saying you would land the fighters there when you move in with the carriers in your non combat phase? This would negate the Kamikaze token tremendously…The answer to your question is yes.
-
Can you move into Japan seazone with fighters from carriers in your combat phase, saying you would land the fighters there when you move in with the carriers in your non combat phase? This would negate the Kamikaze token tremendously…
Yup. Common tactic is to send aircraft with destroyers and submarines for meat shields specifically to negate the kamikaze attack. Otherwise, you run the risk of having carriers get damaged from Kamikaze runs and having planes splash into the ocean.
-
scrambling fighters is in response to an actual combat not a combat movement correct? Example: transport leaves from sz110 picks up Inf on Denmark and returns to 110 to amphib Normandy. Fighters from West Germany cannot scramble to prevent the Denmark pickup?
-
Right - you can’t scramble against a load, only an unload that is a combat move (an amphibious assault)
-
In the past before the second edition had come out people had made homemade IPC and NO’s charts.
Can someone show me where to find an updated chart for the new NO’s and IPC for Global 1940?
Thanks
-
USA amphibious assaults an island with a enemy transport in the seazone.
USA is attacking with a fighter a cruiser and a transport with 2 infantry.
There are no enemy ships other than 1 Japanese transport.Can USA attack the transport with the fighter and bombard with the cruiser?
Or does it have to let the transport live in order to bombard?
Or does the transport prevent the bombard? -
@Uncrustable:
USA amphibious assaults an island with a enemy transport in the seazone.
USA is attacking with a fighter a cruiser and a transport with 2 infantry.
There are no enemy ships other than 1 Japanese transport.Can USA attack the transport with the fighter and bombard with the cruiser?
Or does it have to let the transport live in order to bombard?
Or does the transport prevent the bombard?If u kill the trn u cannot bombard. Let the trn live and you can bombard.
-
@Uncrustable:
USA amphibious assaults an island with a enemy transport in the seazone.
USA is attacking with a fighter a cruiser and a transport with 2 infantry.
There are no enemy ships other than 1 Japanese transport.Can USA attack the transport with the fighter and bombard with the cruiser?
Or does it have to let the transport live in order to bombard?
Or does the transport prevent the bombard?If u kill the trn u cannot bombard. Let the trn live and you can bombard.
Oh the horror :-o
-
Can China declare war? (on Germany or Italy)
Or can German/Italian units enter Axis territories in China, thereby making those territories completely immune to Chinese attack while the G/I units are there (assuming G/I never declared war on China)?
-
China can declare war on a European Axis power if one of those powers either declares war on China or moves units into a territory into which Chinese units are allowed to move.
-
Oh! Glad I asked, thanks - so fast
-
USA turn 3, Japan just declared war on UK and ANZAC.
USA declares war on Japan and attacks Japanese transports in SZ19 (Off Okinawa) with a single bomber from Hawaii.Would there be any reason that USA would not be allowed to land said bomber in Russian controlled Amur?
I ask because tripleA refuses the move to Amur, but not the attack on the SZ.
Pretty sure its just a bug, but want to make sure. -
The USSR and Japan must be at war with each other in order to allow US planes to land in Soviet territory on the Pacific map.
Suggested Topics
