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)
-
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.
-
thanks!
-
If a sub does a non combat move into a seazone containing warships and transports ,are the transports allowed to move out of the seazone during combat move and then load and move again in non combat move?
-
No.
-
thanks gamer…is that on your list of Triple A errors? Because the new version of Triple A allows that move.
-
It sure is - thank you
Item 16C), and it has been added to the Triple A game notes themselves, in the new version
-
I skimmed the 80 pages here and didn’t see anything on the subject, nor did I find it using the search function, so I had to register and ask a question.
In a previous incarnation of A&A, mechanized infantry were able to “carry” an infantry or an artillery piece to move 2 (don’t recall which version), and my A&A buddy and I had been playing Global 1940 and now G40 2nd Ed with this old rule. However, upon closer examination of the rule book, it does not say that infantry or artillery may move 2 with a mechanized infantry. Is this no longer allowed in G40 and G40 2nd Ed?
-
I skimmed the 80 pages here and didn’t see anything on the subject, nor did I find it using the search function, so I had to register and ask a question.
In a previous incarnation of A&A, mechanized infantry were able to “carry” an infantry or an artillery piece to move 2 (don’t recall which version), and my A&A buddy and I had been playing Global 1940 and now G40 2nd Ed with this old rule. However, upon closer examination of the rule book, it does not say that infantry or artillery may move 2 with a mechanized infantry. Is this no longer allowed in G40 and G40 2nd Ed?
There is no carrying of any other units in G40 2nd edition, no.
You may be thinking of the technology “mechanized infantry” which allowed a tank to carry an infantry with it. That was in the 50th anniversary game, circa 2008
Mechanized infantry is a new unit introduced in the 1940 games that is basically just an infantry unit that can move 2 spaces, and costs 4 instead of 3.
-
I have a couple of questions about the conversion of the US IC’s to majors when the US enters the war.
I"m playing a game on Triple A and here’s what’s happened.
ON J2 Japan set up for a major attack on the US by moving the majority of her fleet w/six loaded transports to Hawaii. A combination attack on J3 takes Alaska, Midway, Hawaii and Western US. Japan takes control of the minor IC in Western US.Question 1- On US three is there a limit on the number of units the US can place? They have two minors at the start of their turn…but they convet to majors on that turn. Triple A only allowed three units per IC…so I need to know if that’s correct.
Question 2- If the minor IC in Western US is under Japanese control…does it convert to a major IC on the US turn? Triple A placed a major there on the start of the US turn…but it also left the minor there. So what exactly is the rule for the IC upgrade if it’s under enemy control? -
@captain:
I have a couple of questions about the conversion of the US IC’s to majors when the US enters the war.
I"m playing a game on Triple A and here’s what’s happened.
ON J2 Japan set up for a major attack on the US by moving the majority of her fleet w/six loaded transports to Hawaii. A combination attack on J3 takes Alaska, Midway, Hawaii and Western US. Japan takes control of the minor IC in Western US.USA is at war with Japan on J3, when Japan declares war on the USA. Minors are increased to majors immediately upon state of war. Therefore, when Japan invaded WUS, there should have been a major IC there.
Question 1- On US three is there a limit on the number of units the US can place? They have two minors at the start of their turn…but they convet to majors on that turn. Triple A only allowed three units per IC…so I need to know if that’s correct.
Limit is 10. They should have converted to majors when Japan declared war on the USA. Triple A does not convert USA minors to majors when it should.
Question 2- If the minor IC in Western US is under Japanese control…does it convert to a major IC on the US turn? Triple A placed a major there on the start of the US turn…but it also left the minor there. So what exactly is the rule for the IC upgrade if it’s under enemy control?
It should have converted to major upon the DOW, and been reduced to a minor upon capture. It will not be automatically increased to a major upon USA recapture. USA will have to spend 20 to get a major
-
thanks for the response I didn’t think Triple A was doing it the correct way…it looks like I’ll have to edit the major IC out of WUS and spend the money for the upgrade.
-
Are you allowed to move land units from Scotland to Ireland without transports?
-
Yes
Suggested Topics
