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)
-
That is the power of kamikaze!!! :fearful:
-
eh - kamikazes plus submarine, that is. The kamikazes alone can’t stop the landing since they can’t hurt transports, of course
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
That is the power of kamikaze!!! :fearful:
I did right then!
-
G gamerman01 referenced this topic on
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
The sub prevention is for combat move only.
You are in the combat phase. Both destroyers are gone, so you have loaded transport vs. sub. Sub gets a shot, and if it misses, the transport retreats because the attacker has no chance against that sub now
I was also wondering about this scenario.
My interpretation would be that the US player can chose to ignore the sub in the CM. This is possible due to surface warships present. US DD are then sunk in the Combat phase.
I would assume the sub is still ignored. Is this incorrect? @gamerman01 ?
-
I think that combat is created by kamikaze rather than the attacker.
-
No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle. -
@Krieghund said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:
@surfer said in Carrier escape from kamikazi:
BTW, how is the scramble any different than kamikazi? Neither are in play at the time of combat movement. There is no combat in either case–only the defender’s option to combat.
I would think if you could avoid combat from scramble, then you should be able to avoid combat from kamikazi.Krieghund’s reply:
A scramble forces a sea battle, while a kamikaze strike does not. A kamikaze strike is a single attack against a single unit, not a full-blown battle.
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Sub plus kamikaze is still powerful though…
-
@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]
Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ) -
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]
Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)not a silly question then! Hahaha
-
@Krieghund Assuming that I have a friendly sea zone,can I offload from my ally’s transport on my combat move and then, during my non-combat move, load more units onto the same transport?
-
@ampdrive No. Using your ally’s transport doesn’t exempt it from the rule that a transport may not load in the same turn after offloading.
-
@Krieghund Thank you for the timely reply.I thought,just maybe,this was a way to more efficiently utilise US transports with UK land units in sz 110.
-
Man, I don’t remember ever coming across this.
I scoured the rulebooks but couldn’t find, also the FAQs
You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.
It appears to me that you don’t have to say whether you’re actually attacking the sub(s) until you decide to roll that battle, that sea zone. (So you never need to declare ahead of time, just decide when you get to that sea zone)
Is this correct? Surely I missed something somewhere.
Triple A (which we never trust, like P@nther has in his signature) makes you say whether you are attacking transports/subs before any dice are rolled.
-
I realize you can’t move units in the combat movement phase that are not going to conduct combat.
However, in this situation a destroyer was escorting a transport over subs, so the destroyer must be moved in combat movement. Then does that destroyer have the option of attacking the subs, and does the player get to wait until getting to that battle in the conduct combat phase to actually decide to attack or not?
I know you can ignore subs in the combat movement phase, but do you have to declare that you’re not going to attack them? I can’t find that you have to declare in advance.
Can’t wait to hear this answer.
-
Is not it still like you wrote: “You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.” So during combat MOVEMENT you decide to ignore or not?
-
That’s the whole point of my question.
I can’t see in the rulebook that you declare anything about attacking subs in combat movement. -
@gamerman01 You must decide during combat movement whether or not you are ignoring enemy subs/transports.
-
And so you have to tell your opponent.
Curious where it says this in rulebook?
-
@gamerman01 It doesn’t say it explicitly, but the intent of combat movement is to either initiate or avoid combat, so it follows that the intent must be stated when the movement is made.
Suggested Topics
