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)
-
yes. dirty tricks.
Dirty is the way allies play :) Soviet pirate income from Somaliland, YARRR!
-
Can UK and Anzac prevent Japan from loading their transports in combat move if UK moves a warship into a seazone (in this case z36) and Anzac declear war on them.
yes. dirty tricks.
That’s awesome, I’ll have to remember it LOL. Any delay of Japan getting to the money islands will help.
-
Well, the trick is, it does constitute an unprovoked attack, and UK will not get the NO, and it costs you a destroyer, but if your opponent is unsuspecting it can be very effective, yes.
-
If russia non-combat into an american controlled korea, does this affect the mongolia rule?
-
If russia non-combat into an american controlled korea, does this affect the mongolia rule?
negative ghostrider
-
the pattern is full
-
How is damage calculated when doing an SBR on a major IC?
I know each surviving bomber gets to roll a dice, but sometimes I see a 7 or 8 for a dice. Why is that? -
@captain:
How is damage calculated when doing an SBR on a major IC?
I know each surviving bomber gets to roll a dice, but sometimes I see a 7 or 8 for a dice. Why is that?Strategic Bombers each inflict one die plus two (1d6+2) points of damage.
If you roll a 5, that’s 7. If you roll a 6, that’s 8. -
thanks for clarifying that!
-
Does a Japanese SBR on a Russian air base built in Amur activate the Mongolians?
-
Does a Japanese SBR on a Russian air base built in Amur activate the Mongolians?
Yes.
“Also, if Japan attacks any Soviet-controlled territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory…”
SBR is an attack.
-
How would this scenario play out? 3 UK inf and 3UK art are loaded on three US transports attacking western germany from SZ 112, (UK’s turn) with a large US navy in the same sea zone and no UK navy or air. Germany scrambles to defend the sea zone but my question is are the German air able to sink US transports? If so that seems a little strange that the America navy would sit by while one of their transports are sinking. Also since it is an American transport on UKs turn it can’t retreat so what happens?
I would play it as, the UK has to sit on the US ships until they receive their own orders to attack. The ships they are offloading from are still manned, and there for would still be able to defend. And besides, you CAN’T single out or choose who you are attacking in a country/territory/SZ, you attack the whole space and everything in it. If the SZ that they are offloading from is loaded with friendly ships, they still get to defend the space. Its that way in every other case in the game. Friendly powers occupying the same space can defend at the same time, but can only attack during their own individual turns. Also in the case of an ACC with two Friendly planes on it (all 3 can defend that SZ, ACC and the 2 friendly planes, but the friendly planes can only attack on their own turn and with out being able to move the ACC that they took off from).
-
UK is the attacker in this scenerio.Rules don’t allow a friendly power to participate in your attack.That’s what I think.
-
UK is the attacker in this scenerio.Rules don’t allow a friendly power to participate in your attack.That’s what I think.
Right. The fleet is not defending against a scramble, the scramble is the defense against the attack.
In this scenario, if Germany scrambles then the attack is not allowed. No ships are sunk, no dice are rolled, no combat takes place.
-
Interesting.
Makes me think of other questions.
#1 If UK is also using other land based units to attack,do the air units that were scrambled(were they actually scrambled if the attack is cancelled?)get to defend?#2 What if UK has air units on friendly carriers .Can Uk use those units to protect the trannies?
-
Interesting.
Makes me think of other questions.
#1 If UK is also using other land based units to attack,do the air units that were scrambled(were they actually scrambled if the attack is cancelled?)get to defend?Air units that are scrambled can NOT defend against the land units of the amphibious assault. Likewise, air units that intercept an SBR cannot scramble or defend against land attack. They can only be involved in 1 battle.
#2 What if UK has air units on friendly carriers .Can Uk use those units to protect the trannies?
Absolutely. those UK air units can take off the carriers and fight scrambled aircraft and/or hostile warships that are now in the zone.
Guest fighters are only stuck on the allied carriers when it is that ally’s turn and that ally is moving/attacking.
But when the power owning the fighters has their turn, those fighters can be used freely in combat move/combat. -
UK is the attacker in this scenerio.Rules don’t allow a friendly power to participate in your attack.That’s what I think.
Right. The fleet is not defending against a scramble, the scramble is the deffense against the attack.
In this scenario, if Germany scrambles then the attack is not allowed. No ships are sunk, no dice are rolled, no combat takes place.
yup true, the scramble is the defender. AND, the amphibious assault is coming from Land units not controlling any of the naval ships in the SZ. ALL of the naval ships are controlled by friendlies, and if the scramble is defending the assault they would have to defend against ALL of the ships.
If the scramble can swoop in and destroy only the transports in the middle of ALL the war ships, I feel that this is just a manipulation of the words printed in the rulebook.
-
yup true, the scramble is the defender. AND, the amphibious assault is coming from Land units not controlling any of the naval ships in the SZ. ALL of the naval ships are controlled by friendlies,
Right
and if the scramble is defending the assault they would have to defend against ALL of the ships.
Only against the ships of the power whose turn it is (in this case, there are none)
If the scramble can swoop in and destroy only the transports in the middle of ALL the war ships, I feel that this is just a manipulation of the words printed in the rulebook.
It’s a wrong interpretation, not a manipulation… :-)
Scrambled aircraft defend along with any defending warships against whatever naval or air forces of the power whose turn it is (in this case UK) are in the sea zone at the end of the combat movement phase. If there are no naval or air forces of the playing power (UK) in the first place, then there is no combat, and amphibious assaults off friendly transports would then not be allowed.
This is all under the set of facts that you have UK ground units on Allied (Not UK) transports and there are no other UK warships or aircraft in the sea zone at the end of the combat movement phase. Under this set of facts, if the defender scrambles (only 1 plane required), the attacker (UK) is simply not able to unload any troops and no combat takes place. The amphibious assault is stopped by the scramble, with no losses.
-
Before the US is at war, does the rule regarding stopping naval movement adjacent to Japanese territories apply just to surface ships…or does it include subs?
-
The rulebook uses the term “sea units”. I think submarines qualify for that :wink:.
In real life you might have a point (who can detect where a nation’s subs are), but the wording of the rules leave no room for interpretation.
Suggested Topics
