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)
-
Right, you’re right, Russia can’t go into a pro-Allied neutral (NW Persia) until at war with Euro-Axis
-
Thanks guys!
-
New to the forum because my gaming buddy and I have a question:
If I attack a seazone and eliminate all hostile units in the seazone, can i move naval vessels that have not moved in combat through that sea zone in non-combat? My theory is that the sea zone in non-combat is now friendly and see units can move freely through…
Thanks in advance!
AW
-
Yes you can AtW.
To tie that answer into the preceding thread - you can make a non combat move through or into that sea zone as it is no longer hostile.
-
Thanks!
-
If another player asks me how much money I have in the bank do I have to tell that player?
-
@master4709:
If another player asks me how much money I have in the bank do I have to tell that player?
Yes, IPC’s on hand is supposed to be totally open
You have no obligation to give him your routing and account numbers, however :wink:
-
Noticed that triple-A only allows an opportunity to not kill an undefended transport if the attacker is a sub. Perhaps that behaviour is correct according to the rules? It only allows a submerge, not a retreat so could be kosher.
Has this point ever been clarified? Seems like a hard reading of the rules would show that the current behaviour is correct albeit a little counter intuitive.
-
Pretty sure if you make a combat move with a sub into a sea zone with an undefended enemy transport, that transport would be sunk according to the rules.
If you don’t want to attack and sink the transport, you move the sub in the noncombat movement phase
Never trust Triple A to follow the rulebook exactly. It wasn’t designed that way. That’s why they give you the big notice - players are expected to know the rulebook
-
I’m thinking like a programmer. There are a few other cases, mostly with the sub starting in that same SZ. Perhaps the TT moved there on that power’s NCM either suiciding or planning for an ally to sink the TT.
I guess under the defenseless transport rule, you shouldn’t get an option to submerge.
Be nice if we could get rid of as many unnecessary prompts as possible.
-
Ok, I’m satisfied that the defenseless transport applies even if the attacker is a sub and could normally submerge.
The reason for this post is a First Edition of 1940 question. I’ve noticed that in the XML for SBR fighters attack on a 1 but defend on a 2. Is that a mistake? I can’t find a copy of the rule book.
BTW, still looking for Kreighund’s answer for this question:
@simon33: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.
-
No, it’s right. I own a first edition rulebook and I just verified that fighters attack on a 1 and defend on a 2 in the original out of the box game.
Defenseless transport rule is only that you don’t have to actually roll the dice when only transports are left (in the conduct combat phase).
From the blue box: “In a sea battle, if the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking, the defending transports are all destroyed.”This is in the rules for “Phase 3: Conduct Combat”
The defenseless transport rule does not come into play in the movement phases
-
Hmm, is it the same rule as v5 (aka 1942.2) where the attacking units get a first strike on the defenders and remaining defenders then fire on a 2? This rule is not emulated in Triple-A.
Re: defenseless transports, from that rule I read that there is no option for a sub to submerge instead of firing at a defenseless transport. If you don’t want to attack it at all you will still get the prompt “attack transports in X Sea Zone”
-
BTW, still looking for Kreighund’s answer for this question:
@simon33: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.
There is no reason why you would need to declare all rocket targets before rolling for any rockets.
-
Ok, thanks.
A lot of people have seen it differently BTW. Goes against the Zen of Axis and Allies which is you can’t change your attacks after you see the results of another attack, other than retreating.
I might see if I can convince the developers to add an option. Easy enough to do, hard to convince them!
-
Ok
Can USA take control of celeb (celeb is not activated by any power yet) when at war (with Japan)?
-
No Oystello. Only Uk or Anzac can do that, if still Dutch.
-
However, it can still land air or land units on those territories while they remain Dutch. And if UK or ANZAC activate the territories, the units survive, I’m sure.
-
If an AA gun fires a rocket, does that constitute a combat action depriving the AA gun of a non-combat move?
-
If an AA gun fires a rocket, does that constitute a combat action depriving the AA gun of a non-combat move?
I think I found the answer, and it is no, right?
Suggested Topics
