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)
-
the US is launching an amphib attack on Phil. Japan has one sub in sea zone 35 and the US has moved a dd and sub to 35. Kamis have sunk the dd and the Japanese subs submerges. Will the US still be able to unload the transport and do the amphib on Phil?
-
Yes. The US won the sea battle when the Japanese sub submerged. In order to prevent the landing, the Japanese sub would need to both sink the US sub and survive, forcing the US transports to retreat.
-
I have a question about a situation I have never seen before. If a Russian unit is transported on a British transport, can it off load into Northern Italy without Italy being able to scramble from Southern Italy?
If not, do the other British naval units participate in the “amphibious” assault by an ally from their transport?
-
Allied parties may not make any joint attacks. This includes amphibious landings. You could have 50 British bbs and Italy could scramble a lone fighter and prevent the assault. Unless of course at least 1 Russian unit (ftr, tac, etc) was in that same sea zone. In which case a battle would occur solely between the Russian unit(s) and any Italian/German scramblers.
Nothing happens to the British transport regardless of any sea battle that may or may not occur based on scrambling. And a scramble or lost battle would just keep the Russians on the transport. They don’t die, they’ll just stew on the transport complaining about a lack of a real drink like vodka and wondering what the big deal about tea was.
-
Right. I would just point out that the Italians have to actually scramble to stop it (commit at least 1 plane). But axisandalliesplayer is right - once the Italians scramble, it stops the Russians from unloading and no dice are rolled - no combat occurs - the Russians stay on the transport.
-
I have a quick question: does the territory of Ontario connect to Central United States?
-
According to the map on TripleA it does.
-
99% sure it does - couldn’t find it off-hand…
-
It does.
-
Probably only Krieghund knows for sure…
Page 37 of the Europe manual says that USA can send warships (not transports) into zone 102 before being at war with Germany/Italy.
I assume fighters on carriers are allowed too? Because I can see it could be argued that only “warships” are allowed into 102.
-
I thought CV’s are warships.
-
-
Political Situation: The United States begins the game at war with no one. In addition to the normal restrictions (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15), while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not move any units into or through China or end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories. While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to U.S. territories,with one exception: U.S. warships (not transports) may also conduct long-range patrols into sea zone 102
Countries have a limitations on where they can move to while neutral. US has those and a couple additional restrictions on where it’s naval units can go. The whole rule was solely limiting ships from moving around wherever in the European theater. My interpretation, take it for what it’s worth, is that there was no need to limit anything else.
There’s no need to talk about land units since they legally can’t end their turn on foreign soil and the transports that would move them elsewhere are limited in where they can go. Same thing with air units, they can’t land on neutral terr and they have to end their turn on a legal landing space (land or carrier). Limit where the carriers can go and you limit where any air units can go.
-
@IKE:
I thought CV’s are warships.
They are, but fighters aren’t
I see it as implied that CV’s carry fighters. If fighters were not allowed in sz102 then the rules would specifically restrict CV’s from being in sz102 while neutral, just as they restrict transports. Warships are allowed in sz102 and CV’s are warships, with or without planes aboard.
-
I know, Ike, but only Krieghund knows the answer. I’m waiting for him. The rulebook says warships, it doesn’t allow for planes. It is ambiguous. Stranger things have happened.
Again, to make sure Krieghund sees it, the question is:
Can fighters/tacs land on carriers in 102 when USA is not at war? Because the rulebook only says “warships” can go to zone 102.
-
Yes, they can. The idea is to prohibit only transports.
-
Thank you - just did it in a game and wanted to be sure it was legal
-
While neutral, can USA land planes in UK or ANZAC? Example, bomber from Central US to London or Fighter from Philippines to Queensland.
-
No Ike.
-
Does a Kamikaze strike constitute a sea battle? i.e. would it prevent shore bombardments?
Suggested Topics
