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)
-
Can you fly over strict neutrals during the CM phase. Ex: bombers from WG attack the cruiser in sz91. If this has already been answered I would appreciate a link. Thank you
-
You can’t fly over any neutrals that have never been attacked before.
Once a neutral is attacked by either side (or claimed, of course, in which case it is no longer neutral) then any powers at war may fly over, and friendly aircraft can land in the neutral. -
So this guy is trying to unload 2 units on Korea.
I got a sub on sz 6 and I want to defend against his 1 sub 1 transport unloading 2 guys.
Can I do it? I told him I can. He do not want to believe me.
-
I guess he is right. He can choose to ignore your sub.
-
@Cow:
So this guy is trying to unload 2 units on Korea.
I got a sub on sz 6 and I want to defend against his 1 sub 1 transport unloading 2 guys.
Can I do it? I told him I can. He do not want to believe me.
Not unless you can scramble.
-
So you do not really need to buy a destroyer to do sea lion, as long as Italy can bomb the airbase. That is kind of weird a u boat would ignore an offloading transport.
-
@Cow:
So you do not really need to buy a destroyer to do sea lion, as long as Italy can bomb the airbase. That is kind of weird a u boat would ignore an offloading transport.
If the transports are escorted by a warship then the u boats can be ignored.
-
Came in late on Cow’s argument about losing planes not landed after his turn was over, just wanted to share an article I wrote on the subject, Cheers.
-
@Young:
Came in late on Cow’s argument about losing planes not landed after his turn was over, just wanted to share an article I wrote on the subject, Cheers.
Well written thanks!
-
If UK_Pacific lost India and West India, Could UK_Euro collect 2 IPC when taking West India back?
-
No, MagicQ. Is part of the Pacific economy and (stupidly) not interchangeable.
Would need Anzac or US to take it, so as to claim the IPCs for themselves. -
Or Russia! Like I have recently :-)
-
If Russia declares war on Japan, does this affect the relations between Japan and the UK, or ANZAC. I am confused as the soviets are neutral to begin and not apart of the allies. The example of our game is as follows. Russia declares war on japan by moving into china. Japan attacks UK. This wasn’t provoked as the allies had already provoked Japan? The impact being when the US could enter the war. We were divided on the outcome of this situation, but concluded that Japan did make a unprovoked declaration of war and indeed brought the US to bare. Thank you for your help.
-
If Russia declares war on Japan, does this affect the relations between Japan and the UK, or ANZAC. I am confused as the soviets are neutral to begin and not apart of the allies. The example of our game is as follows. Russia declares war on japan by moving into china. Japan attacks UK. This wasn’t provoked as the allies had already provoked Japan? The impact being when the US could enter the war. We were divided on the outcome of this situation, but concluded that Japan did make a unprovoked declaration of war and indeed brought the US to bare. Thank you for your help.
Yes it was unprovoked. Russia Dow does not constitute provoking japan.
-
It is an unprovoked DOW on ANZ/UK/Dutch by Japan that allows USA to DOW Japan
Russia has nothing to do with USA being able to enter the war - ever. -
I just don’t understand this rule. if theres a sub in the water near land where someone wants to unload they have to take the sub out first rite.
now if they have a fleet with no destroyer to take out the sub does this rule still apply?
because I have tried this rule over and over again and its baffling to me.
-
I just don’t understand this rule. if theres a sub in the water near land where someone wants to unload they have to take the sub out first rite.
now if they have a fleet with no destroyer to take out the sub does this rule still apply?
because I have tried this rule over and over again and its baffling to me.
No problem, Dawgone, I can help you with that.
There is no requirement to engage the sub. You can still ignore it. The rule merely prevents amphibious assaults of transports only, over enemy submarines. The warship you send in (as you noted, does not need to be a destroyer) can still ignore the sub, even though it would be moved in during the combat movement phase, in order to make the amphibious assault by the transports legal. There need not be any combat in this sea zone that you are conducting an amphibious assault from.
Again, the rule is basically just that you can’t ignore subs when you only have transports that are looking to conduct an amphibious assault over enemy submarines. They must be escorted by any other warship (even a carrier)
-
I just don’t understand this rule. if theres a sub in the water near land where someone wants to unload they have to take the sub out first rite.
now if they have a fleet with no destroyer to take out the sub does this rule still apply?
because I have tried this rule over and over again and its baffling to me.
If there is a scramble and a sub defends the zone then it must be killed for a landing to occur.
-
I just don’t understand this rule. if theres a sub in the water near land where someone wants to unload they have to take the sub out first rite.
now if they have a fleet with no destroyer to take out the sub does this rule still apply?
because I have tried this rule over and over again and its baffling to me.
If there is a scramble and a sub defends the zone then it must be killed for a landing to occur.
if the attacker does not have a destroyer with his fleet does the sub stop the landing automatically?
-
thank you kindly
have a great day
Suggested Topics
