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)
-
Well that’s a dumb rule… So I could have an entire armada sitting off the coast but the scramble only attacks those units from one country? Yet another combined units gap in the rules!
-
Axis and Allies rules have always been that only one power attacks at a time.
The naval units are considered attackers. It just feels like the USA boats should be defending because of the scramble, but it’s just the UK attacking those scrambled units - the scrambled aircraft are defending -
If you forget to land your aircraft and a few turns passed…. do those air units crash n burn?
-
cow, it was uk pac and all you did was italy which had nothing to do with india or the entire pacific. when i got back to the pacific with anzac, thats when i realized the tripleA error.
-
I am actually curious what the official answer to this is. Because the rules contradict. Also if we do land planes where do we land them? Adjacent territory or player choice? It also contradicts the other rule that removes unlanded fighters from the game.
-
It always crashed and burned in my games. You are the first person who wanted an official ruling so I am getting it.
-
When a player forgets to land fighters and ends the turn, are the fighters dead? If they are alive who decides where they land?
-
I would think it would be the opponent’s responsibility to point it out, actually. Much like both players are supposed to look for all possible convoy damage on each collect income phase. But if you’re playing with a buddy and you both like to play that way, of course that would be fine (you forgot to land them - they crash).
All aircraft are supposed to be landed safely if possible by the end of non-combat. So not landing them, I would say is a rules violation. Just as with any other rules violation, the opponent should point it out and it can be rectified, and then your question becomes irrelevant.
If someone moves a bomber out and forgets to noncom it, do you think that should crash too? I’m sure the vast majority of players would agree that the non-combat phase is not really over until all air is legally landed (or crashed if a carrier couldn’t possibly pick them up)
-
You are diverting from the question.
It is a yes or no question. These things happen. People forget to roll convoys and only remember until a whole round later. Do you rectify that?
It is pretty simple question. Do fighters crash or do you rectify it somehow? What are the rectify rules? Opponent chooses where it goes or what?
First time hearing of these rectify rules.
-
The rules say cleanup.
I asked this question in the old faq. You just clean it up, the pieces go back in the box. Most players play casually and would just land them in the nearest spot. League is only semi casual. Depends on who you get.
I had to lose a few fighters in a league game before. It has not been asked on this faq so I am asking it again for clarification.
-
Honestly I would say that his turn should not have ended, so let him land the planes where he wants. If it ends up making a huge difference to Italy, then re-do Italy’s turn.
I can’t imagine playing with someone who made me lose the planes in that situation. I would quit the game right then. i don’t care if it’s a league game, someone who does that is not someone I would ever want to play with.In our games, when this happens, we let the player land them wherever they want, even if it’s a whole round later. It’s really not a big deal.
Even with convoy raiding, if we forget it until the next round, just roll it then. It shouldn’t make a difference if they lose the money at the end of their last turn or the beginning of their next turn. -
I agree with Pancake. You know, you guys could also read your combat log occasionally. I spotted this immediately in the UK2 log:
Non Combat Move - British
2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber could not land in Burma and were removed -
My opponent is extremely strict. It is not a casual league game. Need ruling.
-
Ask Jenn
You two shouldn’t even be playing each other.
You just saw two players plus myself say that it is ridiculous to demand these planes are lost. I get that both of you are trying to catch each other on technicalities to prove a point etc. You guys need to work it out or get Jennifer. I’m not going to be the puny little referee in this out of control Pro Wrestling match :lol:
-
A couple of fighters crashing is so dramatic. Jeez.
When I forget, my planes crash. When someone else forgets, they are forgiven. I just want an official ruling on what to do for fighters that have not landed.
If I am going to be playing a strict by the rules game, it is what it is. Why be so dramatic?
Technically one can only blame thyself for forgetting important units.
-
I agree, it’s an unusual issue to have. TripleA warns you when there are planes that haven’t landed. If you’re not going to let it go, I think you should ask Jennifer. Was she the one who ruled against you with this issue last time?
-
Jen or Garg. One or the other.
It makes sense because it keeps people from intentionally not landing fighters to see what opponents do then going… “oh i forgot to land these… I will put them here.”
-
@Cow:
My opponent is extremely strict. It is not a casual league game. Need ruling.
i’m not extremely strict, that’s ridiculous. i said i want you to stop making all these noncom edits - something you have been strict on in the past.
-
@Cow:
Jen or Garg. One or the other.
It makes sense because it keeps people from intentionally not landing fighters to see what opponents do then going… “oh i forgot to land these… I will put them here.”
and that’s fine, but you know i was not trying to take advantage in this case i just accidentally clicked through.
-
@Cow:
Jen or Garg. One or the other.
It makes sense because it keeps people from intentionally not landing fighters to see what opponents do then going… “oh i forgot to land these… I will put them here.”
that would be Jenn then since Garg has nothing to do with the league, let alone being a moderator. sure am happy to hear his opinion on the matter though.
Suggested Topics
