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)
-
Another one… Does Colombia border seazone 89? It looks like Venezuela, Colombia and Central America converge.
-
You’re right, they meet at a point. Colombia does not border Z89
Here’s a reference of Krieghund explaining that Venezuela does not border Central America because they meet at a point. He says if they meet at a point, they’re not adjacent.
-
I think I might have found a loophole. If you are playing with tech and have rockets, you can target the rocket on an air or naval base and if you are also strategically bombing the same territory, you don’t have to nominate the target until after the air battle which means you can see the results of the rocket attack and attack the factory instead, or a different base or vice versa.
Am I reading the rules correctly?
-
The rules for rockets just say they take place “during the Strategic bombing phase of your turn” so it’s not definitive
I probably knew a couple years ago but haven’t played tech for at least that long so I don’t remember for sure. Somebody else would have to answer that for sure, and if someone doesn’t have notes from Krieghund’s previous clarifications on this you’ll probably need Krieghund himself to answer this for sure
-
-
But if there’s no air battle?
Then are targets chosen by all bombers before rockets are rolled? -
Why would it make a difference whether or not there’s an air battle? The air battle and the bombing both take place in the same step. The rocket attacks can be done before any of the SBRs are resolved.
-
Why would it make a difference whether or not there’s an air battle?
Because when there’s an air battle, the attacker divides his bombers into groups after the air battles. If there are no air battles, the attacker would declare targets at some point before AAA fire. It is unclear whether you have to declare targets before rolling rocket dice.
The rocket attacks can be done before any of the SBRs are resolved.
And there’s the answer we need - thanks!!!
Wait, you said “resolved”
To be 100% clear, you can roll rockets before you choose facility targets for bombers? -
Yes.
-
Hmm, if the pull request I have on github is accepted this loophole will be closed in Triple-A. Order will be: nominate rocket targets, SBR, roll rocket damage. Current order is: nominate rocket territories; for each rocket pick facility to target then roll. I’m somewhat disinclined to change it.
-
Hmm, if the pull request I have on github is accepted this loophole will be closed in Triple-A. Order will be: nominate rocket targets, SBR, roll rocket damage. Current order is: nominate rocket territories; for each rocket pick facility to target then roll. I’m somewhat disinclined to change it.
But the correct order is:
1. Choose rocket target
2. Roll for rocket damage
3. SBR Air Battle (if occurring)
4. SBR declare targets
5. SBR AA fire
6. SBR roll for damage -
Isn’t the rule as clarified a bit against the spirit of the A&A rules? If it is as I have proposed it still isn’t against the rules, it just enforces some additional (house) rules.
BTW, Triple-A requires targets to be declared before rocket targets are if there are no potential interceptors.
-
It would be great if Triple A followed the actual official rules as closely as possible please
-
It would be great if Triple A followed the actual official rules as closely as possible please
A bit difficult to have rocket attacks and SBR in any desired order which appears to be rule.
In fact, the formerly noted “bug” about 2nd rockets being able to be targetted after the 1st rocket is rolled appears to be not a bug unless there is some previous answer making it a bug.
I suppose the order as expounded by P@nther is possible. Maybe have an option?
-
Can this point be clarified?
In fact, the formerly noted “bug” about 2nd rockets being able to be targetted after the 1st rocket is rolled appears to be not a bug unless there is some previous answer making it a bug.
-
You will need Krieghund’s answer on that because the rockets rule doesn’t specify.
I would guess that you have to declare all rocket targets before rolling any dice for any rockets, but you are right that there is room for interpretation if you just read the brief rules for rockets under “breakthrough chart 1”
-
Hi everyone, a question about dutch territories and ANZAC. I know there’s a sticky but maybe I’m dense but it wasn’t clear to me.
Question 1 - ANZAC can land on dutch territories and then claim their IPCs, but for their first landing on one of these territories does it need to be a land unit or is a plane sufficient? I assume a plane is ok because the dutch territories are “friendly”.
Question 2 - if Japan is not at war with anyone yet (but China of course) can they invade Dutch territories that are not yet claimed by ANZAC? or is this an unprovoked declaration of war on ANZAC-UK?
Sub-question 2 - I’m 99% sure that if ANZAC has landed on a Dutch territory but is not yet at war with Japan and ANZAC leaves the dutch territory unprotected and Japan lands on the now “ANZAC” territory this is an unprovoked declaration of war. Am I correct?
-
Evening and welcome
Yo the forum.
1. Has to be a non AA Ground unit to claim the territory amd claim its IPCs.
2. No, it cannot. Is a Declaration of War.
3. Yes. -
Thanks wittmann that is real helpful. This FAQ thread is really great.
One other question for anyone and I think that would be it for today.
Russia and pro-allies neutral countries when Russia is not at war.
If Germany and Japan are delaying the attack against Russia, my understanding is that Russia may not go into a pro-ally neutral country (and of course this would apply to any other nation not at war yet). This is how I read the rule book, am I correct?
I ask because during the last game I played I wanted to stage some Russians in northwest Persia to help the UK in Persia when they (the Russians) finally are pulled into the war. After I read the rules closely I read “They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war.”
Seems clear enough but I always like confirmation.
-
Think of it this way. Russia can’t move ground units anywhere that isn’t an originally controlled Russian territory until they are at war.
Suggested Topics
