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)
-
Can a Romanian factory place a transport in sea zone 100 while the Turkish strait is closed?
-
@young-grasshopper sure…they just can’t leave the zone until the strait is opened.
-
@snigg that’s what I thought, thanks
-
@young-grasshopper Just build a Battleship why don’t cha- Throoow your Ipcs away!!!😏
-
@nolimit said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@young-grasshopper Just build a Battleship why don’t cha- Throoow your Ipcs away!!!😏
maybe he wants to attack caucasus ? :)
-
Could make sense if there is an airbase although the airbase defences can be overpowered.
-
Question regarding the Danish Straits. If the US lands in Norway and is able to build a MIC on the following turn, can newly built ships then be placed in the Baltic Sea, bypassing the need to control Denmark? I assume it is possible When looking at Norway’s shoreline and touching four SZs, I just wouldn’t be able to bring any existing ships through the Straits without taking Denmark. Am I correct with this assumption?
-
Yes…
-
I’m practicing against the computer, my question is how come I can’t place a British factory upgrade in South America, Egypt or Ontario?
-
It has to have a value of 3 and +
-
@tcnance
Major industrial complexes can be built only in originally controlled (not captured) territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.A minor industrial complex can be upgraded to a major one at a cost of 20 IPCs. The industrial complex to be upgraded must be located on an originally controlled (not captured) territory that you have controlled since the beginning of your turn and that has an IPC value of 3 or higher.
-
Notably, Manchuria does not count as originally controlled. I have no idea why it doesnt, since you control that territory at the start of the game.
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Notably, Manchuria does not count as originally controlled. I have no idea why it doesnt, since you control that territory at the start of the game.
That is explanied in the Pacific rulebook, page 8:
“A few territories in China have a Chinese emblem on them but
are controlled by Japan at the start of the game. These
territories are considered to belong to China originally, but
have been captured by Japan.” -
I know what is in the rule book. But it’s still nonsense. Why are Norway and Romania considered original German territories? Because that makes no sense either…
-
@squirecam Yep, there’s a lot of Abstract things about the game but it’s such a Great time playing it that we have learned to accept it as is- otherwise it’s just not A&A anymore if it was almost as realistic as the Real War was, you could always use your Own House rules to your personal liking anyway!!!
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
I know what is in the rule book. But it’s still nonsense. Why are Norway and Romania considered original German territories? Because that makes no sense either…
Ok, for further answers to this, if Kiangsu was originally Japanese they could build a major factory on it so that is prohibited. Would also require a long list of exceptions to the non chinese territories that China is allowed to occupy, and also require exceptions to allow China to mobilise there. Far easier to just call it originally Chinese.
Whereas Norway could be its own power with no capital like the Dutch but that would have no effect on the gameplay except that Germany couldn’t build a major complex but they would never want to. I guess Italy or Japan could retake it from the allies.
-
Also the Chinese coastal territories could become US/UK/ANZ.
-
These territories should be colored differently then. Have Norway neutral with a German control marker. So the rule is consistent and applied equally.
-
@squirecam said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
These territories should be colored differently then. Have Norway neutral with a German control marker. So the rule is consistent and applied equally.
Might as well do the rest like Finland,Hungary, Yugo, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece etc etc. pro neutral ? Strict neutral ?
-
@gen-manstein
Finland got hosed by the Allies during the winter war so I have no issue with them being Pro Axis.
You could make the argument for the others remaining as is. But Norway was the subject of invasion by both sides.
So it’s not an original German territory and Germany shouldn’t be able to build a major IC there if we are following the Manchria reasoning.
Suggested Topics
