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)
-
In 2nd edition G40 units hit by bombardment still get to fire back like normal. I think you’re looking at a wrong rule book. Site isn’t allowing attachments right now or I’d try to attach the PDF files…. Anybody got the links for this player?
-
first off thank you for answering my questions promptly :-D :-D :-D
sub rules confuse me
1. if you sink a destroyer you can suprise attack after right?
2. you can suprise attack every round if there is no destroyer?
3. subs can submerge on any round that they are attacking which mean they are removed from combat and can not enter back? -
Yes.
I don’t understand your question about the amphibious assaults. Ifthe ships aren’t in position after combat movement they can’t bombard. Those hit by bombardments get to retaliate though.
-
sub rules confuse me
1. if you sink a destroyer you can suprise attack after right?yes, in the following rounds
2. you can suprise attack every round if there is no destroyer?
yes - feeding frenzy! Same thing for subs on defense when no attacking destroyers are present
3. subs can submerge on any round that they are attacking which mean they are removed from combat and can not enter back?
That’s right. And you don’t have to submerge them all - round by round, you can decide to submerge some
-
I don’t understand your question about the amphibious assaults. Ifthe ships aren’t in position after combat movement they can’t bombard. Those hit by bombardments get to retaliate though.
I don’t know what your question is. What do you call “out of position”?
-
I was trying to clarify the previous question. What I mean by in position is being in the sea zone the troops are landing from.
-
OK, yes the cruiser/battleship must be in the same zone as at least one of the offloading transports. You can actually bombard in the following manner:
Attack West Germany from 112 and 113
From 112 you have 2 battleships and a cruiser, and offload 1 infantry from a transport
From 113 you have a cruiser and offload 4 infantry.You can bombard with both cruisers and both battleships because
a) there is at least one transport offloading from each zone and
b) there are 4 or more (5 in my example) ground units in total offloadingThis one surprised me, but we have access to one of the main rulebook writers here on this site, and I learned this from him.
So I think you just wanted to know if the cruiser/battleship had to be in the same zone as the transport(s) and the answer to that is yes.
-
Sounds ridiculous. The rules state:
If there was NOT a combat in the sea zone from which you
are offloading units from transports, any accompanying
battleships and cruisers in that sea zone can conduct a one-time
bombardment of one coastal territory or island group being
attacked. The number of ships that can make bombardment
attacks is limited to 1 ship per land unit being offloaded
from the transports in that coastal territory. If more than one
territory is being assaulted from the same sea zone and there
are multiple battleships and/or cruisers, each ship may support
only one assault. However, the ships’ bombardment may
be split in any way that the attacker chooses, so long as the
number of ships supporting each assault doesn’t exceed the
number of seaborne land units in that assault. Choosing to
destroy enemy transports or attacking enemy submarines in
step 1 (above), counts as a combat and prevents the battleship
and cruiser bombardment from taking place.It also opens a loophole that a battleship can conduct sea combat in zone 113 then bombard West Germany if an infantry is unloaded from zone 112.
-
But the rule says “any accompanying battleships and cruisers in that sea zone,” so that loophole doesn’t exist.
-
It also opens a loophole that a battleship can conduct sea combat in zone 113 then bombard West Germany if an infantry is unloaded from zone 112.
No, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I never said a cruiser or battleship could conduct sea combat and also bombard. Was only trying to explain multiple zone offloading and bombardment
-
My understanding is that if your invasion fleet has to engage in naval combat first, before it can offload troops, then the land-combat phase does not get the benefit of the shore-bombardment. Technically the transport would be offloading while the Cruisers, etc engage in combat with enemy naval forces.
-
You’re exactly right.
I never said anything about naval combat. The obvious assumption was that there was none, like in my example of 113 and 112 -
So for amphibian assaults can you move a tank into a transport and then right onto land because it has 2 moves or is that a no no :? :? :?
-
:-) I can help you with that.
Forget about the 2 moves. Infantry, artillery, mech, tanks, they all can load onto a transport that is in a sea zone adjacent to the territory the land unit started in, and be transported, and then unload onto a land territory as amphibious assault all in the same turn.
In other words, the movement points (1 or 2) is purely for movement across land. It’s not a movement point to get on a transport and another movement point to get off.
Note that even though mech and tanks have 2 movement, they can’t move one territory, and then jump on a transport.
-
It also opens a loophole that a battleship can conduct sea combat in zone 113 then bombard West Germany if an infantry is unloaded from zone 112.
No, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I never said a cruiser or battleship could conduct sea combat and also bombard. Was only trying to explain multiple zone offloading and bombardment
I understood. I still think that is a ridiculous interpretation of the rules.
-
thank you for the clarification of anphibious assults :-D :-D :-D
in global does the us get a pacific war bonus and a European war bonus or just one?
-
I understood. I still think that is a ridiculous interpretation of the rules.
Krieghund the rulebook writer reads everything in this thread…… :-D
-
thank you for the clarification of anphibious assults :-D :-D :-D
Sure, I enjoy it!
in global does the us get a pacific war bonus and a European war bonus or just one?
Ah, neither of the special bonuses that are in the theater games. The USA gets the NO’s that are listed in the Global rules which are at the end of the Europe rulebook.
-
what are the NOs for global
-
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf
You should be able to find the Pacific rulebook from this too - go to Wizards of the Coast website
Suggested Topics
