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)
-
Hi guys.
According to the current/latest ruleset, does Germany get the +5 if Italy controls Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad? Or does Germany need to be the occupying power?
-
Hi guys.
According to the current/latest ruleset, does Germany get the +5 if Italy controls Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad? Or does Germany need to be the occupying power?
Germany must be the occupying power (ie, the territory must be dark gray).
-
Can you land aircraft in a friendly neutral that you activate that turn with land units?
-
No. The territory (friendly neutral) was not controlled by your alliance at the beginning of your turn.
Page 22 about air doing non-com movements says they must land in a territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the beginning of your turn.
The rulebook includes the specification “but not friendly neutral” on page 22
-
Krieghund, there was a question posted recently about Japan restrictions when not at war with USA - how do you count 2 sea zones from WUS and Alaska?
For example, Japan is not allowed to end movement of boats in Z3 when not at war with USA?
How about 4 or 26, for example?Not seeing the question, was either in a different thread or was removed by poster. But we still need to know. Someone else just asked me about it tonight.
Thanks!
-
Just start from Western United States or Alaska (not the Aleutian Islands) and move out two sea zones. The restricted zones are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
-
A convoy disruption question.
1 Russian sub is in SZ 99. Greece is Italian controlled. Syria is German controlled. End of Germany’s turn, the sub is still there and the Russian player rolls 2 dice and gets a 2. So 2 IPCs in damage to be assessed.
Do the Axis players then decide among themselves who takes the IPC hits? For example, 1 IPC from Germany, 1 IPC from Italy? Or can the disruption only occur against the country whose turn is ending because it is only that country who is about to collect income? So effectively just 1 IPC from Germany and the other IPC hit is ignored?
-
The disruption occurs against the country whose turn is ending…so Germany would lose 1.
-
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
I just realized that all official FAQ starting from at least AA50 have been updated to reflect this:
@FAQ:
Movement
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and
I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat
movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still
move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.
However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape
combat. -
@P@nther:
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
I just realized that all official FAQ starting from at least AA50 have been updated to reflect this:
@FAQ:
Movement
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and
I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat
movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still
move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.
However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape
combat.What is the last sentence referring to. Seems a contradiction.
-
The problem is the rulebook has not been corrected. That’s a FAQ that contradicts the rulebook. What was needed was ERRATA, which changes the rule as written in the rulebook.
-
@P@nther:
It goes all the way back to AA50. It’s funny how a single word can have such impact and go undetected for so long.
I just realized that all official FAQ starting from at least AA50 have been updated to reflect this:
@FAQ:
Movement
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and
I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat
movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still
move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there.
However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape
combat.Nice one! P@nther.
-
What is the last sentence referring to. Seems a contradiction.
It refers to the rules on Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones. How is it contradictory?
The problem is the rulebook has not been corrected. That’s a FAQ that contradicts the rulebook.
I see it as an expansion rather than a contradiction. The Rulebook explains moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat, and this FAQ expands that rule to include friendly sea zones in which combat will occur.
-
I’m fuzzy on how this effects transports and non-combat moves. If there’s an enemy sub and I want to attack it, does that prevent me from loading a transport (starting in the same zone) for a non-combat move?
If so, imagine the units are already loaded onto the transport (from the turn before). Could I go ahead an execute my non-combat move as a movement away from the combat zone in combat-move mode?
-
I’m fuzzy on how this effects transports and non-combat moves. If there’s an enemy sub and I want to attack it, does that prevent me from loading a transport (starting in the same zone) for a non-combat move?
Absolutely. You’re moving the transports out of the zone in the combat movement phase to avoid combat.
If so, imagine the units are already loaded onto the transport (from the turn before). Could I go ahead an execute my non-combat move as a movement away from the combat zone in combat-move mode?
You can move the loaded transport away from the zone in the combat movement phase, but you can’t unload it in the non-combat movement phase. You could only unload them if doing an amphibious assault.
I posted discussion on this topic this afternoon on the 2014 and 2015 league rules stickied threads. You will want to read those (copy in both - so you only need to check one)
-
Sounds weird! Still problematic.
My instinct tells me the intention is to allow all units in that seazone to do non-combat move, whatever that might be (including upload and offload), in combat move phase.
-
You will need Krieghund to confirm, but I don’t think that’s the intention, no.
I knew you wouldn’t like it, Q :lol:
But Krieghund only said that the part about escaping a HOSTILE sea zone was the unintended part. You still have subs allowed to noncom into destroyers and whenever you load transports in the combat movement phase, they MUST amphibiously assault (or attempt amphibious assault)
And the only way to move transports away from a sub-infested zone when you are attacking the subs is to COMBAT MOVE them away from the zone to escape combat (we now know - the rulebook said for years that you couldn’t, but that’s the part you helped us find this unintended error)Top of page 16 in rule book, 2nd para under transports
-
Magic Q: the one thing you cannot do, is load Transports in the Combat Move and not amphibiously land. Otherwise, I think you got it.
-
You will need Krieghund to confirm, but I don’t think that’s the intention, no.
Confirmed.
But Krieghund only said that the part about escaping a HOSTILE sea zone was the unintended part. Â You still have subs allowed to noncom into destroyers and whenever you load transports in the combat movement phase, they MUST amphibiously assault (or attempt amphibious assault)
And the only way to move transports away from a sub-infested zone when you are attacking the subs is to COMBAT MOVE them away from the zone to escape combat (we now know - the rulebook said for years that you couldn’t, but that’s the part you helped us find this unintended error)Top of page 16 in rule book, 2nd para under transports
Yes. If your units begin the turn in a sea zone containing only enemy subs and/or transports (thus friendly), you may either attack them or not. If you attack them, your units must either stay and participate in the attack (thus giving up the ability to move in noncombat movement) or move away in combat movement, following the rules regarding moving away from a hostile sea zone to avoid combat. If you don’t attack them, you are free to move your units normally, in either combat or noncombat movement.
-
Questions on Germany and Russia mechanics while NOT at war:
1. German fleet is in sz112, Russia moved her CR & SS to 113. Can Germany move to 113 and load TT? (Assume yes since not at war)
2. Can Germany then attack Leningrad with those transports?
3. Could Germany instead load in sz112 for Sea Lion and attack Russia elsewhere on land?Just trying to understand if I load TT’s in sz113 in combat phase if I’m allowed to also attack Russia that turn or if I would have to wait until the following turn to do so. I think there’s a rule where Japan can load TT’s in what would be a hostile sea zone, and then declare war after loading in the combat phase. Can Germany do the same?
Suggested Topics
