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)
-
@captain:
If India and West India are under Japanese control and UK takes back West India, do they get the two pu’s?
only UK Pacific can collect For west India. So if they don’t have the capital then no. the other allies can collect for West India however.
-
Thanks for the quick reply!
-
In other words, any Ally with a capital (not the Dutch, obviously) can possibly collect from West India EXCEPT UK Europe.
Note also that UK Europe can NEVER build facilities on West India. If UK forces liberate West India, it is UK controlled, but when UK controlled, only India could build facilities there, and never London
-
In other words, any Ally with a capital (not the Dutch, obviously) can possibly collect from West India EXCEPT UK Europe.
Note also that UK Europe can NEVER build facilities on West India. If UK forces liberate West India, it is UK controlled, but when UK controlled, only India could build facilities there, and never London
you rock gamerman. is there any wonder why you are such a great player - you truly know the rules inside and out backwards and fowards.
-
In other words, any Ally with a capital (not the Dutch, obviously) can possibly collect from West India EXCEPT UK Europe.
Note also that UK Europe can NEVER build facilities on West India. If UK forces liberate West India, it is UK controlled, but when UK controlled, only India could build facilities there, and never London
Would London still collect the IPC’s since they took control of it from Japan and the capital is in enemy hands?
-
@IKE:
In other words, any Ally with a capital (not the Dutch, obviously) can possibly collect from West India EXCEPT UK Europe.
Note also that UK Europe can NEVER build facilities on West India. If UK forces liberate West India, it is UK controlled, but when UK controlled, only India could build facilities there, and never London
Would London still collect the IPC’s since they took control of it from Japan and the capital is in enemy hands?
No, London never collects IPC’s from any UK Pacific territories
-
Hi guys,
Im going to play global again with the new set of rules in over more then 2 years.
I can only find separate rules and setups for both games but not for the global game.
I understand russia gets 6 infantries in 3 territories in the east and 2 AA`s in one, UK -1 in egypt and anzac +2 in egypt and Russia loses its 2 infantry bonus.
Is there anything else im missing about the setup?
I also have a question… Whats the increase in IPC
s the USA gets once it gets into war and I remember having some one-time payment of IPCs on certain occasions…The last rules ive played where the alpha 3,9 rules (I think?) and I wonder if there`s a recent chart of National Objectives.
Thanks a lot guys!
-
Hi guys,
Im going to play global again with the new set of rules in over more then 2 years.
I can only find separate rules and setups for both games but not for the global game.
That’s the way it is - look toward the back of the Europe book for the Global rules.
I understand russia gets 6 infantries in 3 territories in the east and 2 AA`s in one, UK -1 in egypt and anzac +2 in egypt and Russia loses its 2 infantry bonus.
You’re comparing the Europe setup to global. Again, look in the back of the Europe book for instructions on playing global. Perhaps you are unaware of those.
Is there anything else im missing about the setup?
I also have a question… Whats the increase in IPC
s the USA gets once it gets into war and I remember having some one-time payment of IPCs on certain occasions…USA just has at-war NO’s (like Russia does). They’re the same as the last Alpha. USA has a homeland NO for 10, 5 for Alaska/Hawaii/Aleuts etc, 5 for West Indies, Panama, Mexico etc for a total of 20. They can also get 5 for Phillipines if Japan has not taken it.
So normally, you are looking at the USA income going up 20 when joining the war, but there are ways for the Axis to reduce that.The last rules ive played where the alpha 3,9 rules (I think?) and I wonder if there`s a recent chart of National Objectives.
Thanks a lot guys!
There are very few changes from the last Alpha to 2nd edition. Yukon territory is eliminated. A slight tweak was made to the Mongolia rules that adds Korea to the list of territories Russia can’t attack without breaking the pact. One infantry subtracted from Egypt for UK. I think that was it.
You also need links to the latest FAQs. P@nther has provided those in the past - if you scan through this thread I don’t think you’ll have to go too far back until you see them. I would answer you more completely, but I’m not sure what you know or don’t know. So feel free to ask follow up questions.
-
@P@nther:
The official FAQ has been updated per November 24, 2014:
Shoot, it was only one page back. Here you go.
-
cheers mate 8-)
-
Can my Italian Paratroppers be used to invade an empty North African territory as long as there is at least one of my land units attacking from an adjacent territory? In other words, can I use the ability to get troops into Africa as long as there are reachable Allied territories to attack?
My opponent recently abandoned a French territory in North Africa and left it empty just to prevent me from using an airbourne assault from Rome as a transport to Africa. He said I couldn’t drop paratroopers into an empty enemy territory even if I had a unit attacking from an adjacent territory.
-
You can add paratroopers to an empty territory if you are attacking with at least 1 other land unit. Your opponent is incorrect - he can’t prevent paratroopers by emptying out territories.
-
You can add paratroopers to an empty territory if you are attacking with at least 1 other land unit. Your opponent is incorrect - he can’t prevent paratroopers by emptying out territories.
Thanks Gamerman.
-
2nd question about paratroopers…
If they are deployed as part of an amphibious assault, and the landing fails due to sea combat… What happens to the paratroopers?
-
Good question. I would think the same thing as overland ground units that were supposed to join an amphibious assault. They have to fight on their own, and there is nowhere to retreat unless there were also other overland ground units attacking.
The paratrooper description doesn’t specifically say so, but I think it is implied that all combat movement (which would include paratroopers) takes place in the combat movement phase, so paratroopers are already committed to the coastal territory. If the amphibious landing never takes place because the sea battle failed, the paratroopers are still committed, and on their own. If there are no overland ground units also attacking the coastal territory, the paratroopers can’t retreat, just like with amphibious assault ground units.
-
@Young:
You can add paratroopers to an empty territory if you are attacking with at least 1 other land unit.� Your opponent is incorrect - he can’t prevent paratroopers by emptying out territories.
Thanks Gamerman.
Sure, no problem. The requirement is that the territory be enemy controlled. There is no requirement that it have a unit in it.
-
Good question. I would think the same thing as overland ground units that were supposed to join an amphibious assault. They have to fight on their own, and there is nowhere to retreat unless there were also other overland ground units attacking.
The paratrooper description doesn’t specifically say so, but I think it is implied that all combat movement (which would include paratroopers) takes place in the combat movement phase, so paratroopers are already committed to the coastal territory. If the amphibious landing never takes place because the sea battle failed, the paratroopers are still committed, and on their own. If there are no overland ground units also attacking the coastal territory, the paratroopers can’t retreat, just like with amphibious assault ground units.
I agree.
-
Can mechs and tanks starting in different territories invade the same empty territory and continue to the next territory? (mechs in east poland and tanks in ukraine going to west ukraine then bryansk)
-
Good question :-D
-
Can mechs and tanks starting in different territories invade the same empty territory and continue to the next territory? (mechs in east poland and tanks in ukraine going to west ukraine then bryansk)
No. Page 29 of the 2nd Edition Rulebook states the following under the description for Mechanized Infantry:
“A mechanized infantry unit must normally stop when it enters an enemy controlled territory. However, when paired one-for-one with a tank, it can make a blitz movement along with that tank. The movement of both units must start and end in the same territories.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, your suggested move would be illegal since both units did not start in the same territory.
EDIT: The above is referencing the Europe rules – there is a similar entry on page 26 of the Pacific rules.
Suggested Topics
