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)
-
@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 -
I’m trying to get some clarity on how transports and submarines work in this ruleset. If a transport starts in a zone where there is an enemy submarine and a combat takes place, is this transport involved in the combat? Can it make ncm movements afterwards?
In a game, I moved a transport and men on a ncm, but there was a sub in the zone the transport started in. Using TripleA, I moved the men during the cm phase, while killing the sub. Now, I understand I’m not supposed to do cm before ncm, but I guess the example brings up 2 issues…1) Must all CMs involve combat? If the answer is yes, then those of us using TripleA have been playing wrong for many years, as it’s common to move a transport 1 space in cm, then another space in ncm. 2) Why are transports included in an attacking combat if I didn’t move the transport into that combat? Or, more simply, why is the transport considered part of the battle?
-
Not all CM must involve combat, as you can move out of a Hostile SZ, to avoid combat.
A Transport could move out of a SZ, which you are attacking with other units, but it can only drop off the units it is carrying if they are amphibiously attacking. They could not drop off in a friendly territory. It is attack or stay on board.AaAA allows you go move one in Combat and one in Non Combat, as you explained.
A&A does not.
It is either move in Combat or in Non Combat.
2. If you do not move the TT away in Combat, it is considered in the combat and can no longer move in Non Combat.
Answer: It just is. -
@wittmann:
Not all CM must involve combat, as you can move out of a Hostile SZ, to avoid combat.
A Transport could move out of a SZ, which you are attacking with other units, but it can only drop off the units it is carrying if they are amphibiously attacking. They could not drop off in a friendly territory. It is attack or stay on board.AaAA allows you go move one in Combat and one in Non Combat, as you explained.
A&A does not.
It is either move in Combat or in Non Combat.
2. If you do not move the TT away in Combat, it is considered in the combat and can no longer move in Non Combat.
Answer: It just is.Thanks for the answer. But it’s still not quite clear.
Basically, I’m USA. I have some land units on Hawaii, a trn, and some other units, including a dd. I want to move the transport and 2 land units to the sz off Carolines (they don’t need to land in Carolines). Carolines is Allied controlled. There is a Japanese sub off Hawaii, which I attacked.
Can the transport load and move in combat move (as the TripleA engine allowed, which may or may not be against the rules…)? If not, would it be able to move if the units were already loaded? Is this one of the reasons people sometimes don’t offload units in Global?
If there is a particular section in the rulebook or faq that explains this pls let me know.
-
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?
Not at all.
- The defender would have to decide that the sub actually fights. (It could be submerged)
- Defending sub(s) would roll, and attacker would choose casualties. Warship would of course be taken first, then transports, according to the number of hits scored. Then the attacking warship would roll (unless it was an aircraft carrier, or unless it/they were all sunk by subs surprise strikes) and potentially score hits. Then the defending fighter/tac(s) would roll, and hits would be scored, first to the warship(s), and then to transports.
Then, the attacker could retreat, even if it is only transports. The only automatic transport killing going on is when the transports are on DEFENSE and the attacker still has attack power. You can’t retreat from only transports (or only AAA’s). So that’s why it is then pointless to keep rolling dice, when the outcome is 100% certain that all transports will be destroyed.
Do not confuse this with ATTACKING with transports. You can always retreat transports if you are in a situation where you could retreat warships (there’s not always an eligible zone to retreat to)
Suggested Topics
