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)
-
There is no reason for ANZAC to DOW on Japan other than to exploit this loophole. Therefore, I submit that removing ANZAC’s ability to DOW on Japan would be perfectly reasonable and remove a loophole.
Spent a few hours driving today and realised all you need to do is remove the link when ANZAC DOWs to the UK. i.e. if ANZAC DOWs, the UK is not at war with Japan. There are reasons why you might want to keep the link if Japan does a DOW - if there’s a mixed fleet. It matters little if you keep or remove the link for the UK.
-
Yeah there is a reason for the link. Basically all politics of the UK and ANZAC are linked, so it’s simple that way (no exceptions to track).
You could always house rule that if one declares war on Japan unprovoked that that is an exception to the link, if you hate the loophole possibility
-
Can a tactical bomber be sent on a SBR when it cannot do any damage?
Does it participate in the dogfight?
Is it exposed to the AAA?Context: Japan keeps sending 1 tactical bomber + 1 strategic bomber to India, which is defended by 2 fighters. Every time the strategic bomber bombs the factory and the tactical bomber bombs the airport/harbour (the TAC is sent along in the SBR to provide an escort during the dogfight). At some point, the airport&harbour both have 6 damage. Can the tactical bomber still be sent to India?
-
Can a tactical bomber be sent on a SBR when it cannot do any damage?
Yes, technically it bombs the ruins but the additional damage cannot be assigned.
Does it participate in the dogfight?
Yes, as an attacking bomber (not as “escort”, only fighters can escort).
Is it exposed to the AAA?
Yes, every attacking bomber surviving the dogfight is subject to the AA-fire of the facility it attacks (other than fighter escorts).
The self-defense antiaircraft ability of the facility is not affected by damage.Context: Japan keeps sending 1 tactical bomber + 1 strategic bomber to India, which is defended by 2 fighters. Every time the strategic bomber bombs the factory and the tactical bomber bombs the airport/harbour (the TAC is sent along in the SBR to provide an escort during the dogfight). At some point, the airport&harbour both have 6 damage. Can the tactical bomber still be sent to India?
Yes. There is nothing in the rules that prevents bombers from bombing damaged (to whatever extent) facilities … but damage exceeding the limits is not applied.
HTH :-)
-
If a facility is fully damaged, I would imagine that is possible but if there is no harbour or airfield I wouldn’t think that was legal.
-
Thanks Panther & Simon! :-) I haven’t seen it happen yet, but one of our games is getting close to this situation.
-
… but if there is no harbour or airfield I wouldn’t think that was legal.
Indeed, as in this scenario the tactical bomber can’t SBR (it can only bomb air bases and naval bases).
-
I can confirm P@nther’s answer, as Krieghund has in the past affirmed that it is legal to send tacticals even when the bases are bombed out
-
Hi Krieg, I have not so much a rules question but an interest to know why a rule is the way it is… i.e. I want to know the reason for the rule.
The rule as quoted from the rule book:
It can also remain at sea with
the cargo still aboard (but only if the cargo remaining
aboard was loaded in a previous turn, was loaded this
turn in the Noncombat Move phase, or was loaded this
turn for an amphibious assault from which the transport
retreated).What is the thinking requiring a transport making an amphib attack to unload all its cargo? Like, if in attack mode it has to go all in? I don’t really think that makes sense. I am sure we could find historical examples of troops held back on the ships while others were sent crashing on the beaches.
Is there some janky game anomaly that arises if an attacker holds back some of the transported units?
Or is the reason as simple as keeping the combat/non-combat move distinction as clean as can be, i.e. all units making combat moves must attack?
Just curious.
-
Or is the reason as simple as keeping the combat/non-combat move distinction as clean as can be, i.e. all units making combat moves must attack?
This. If you want units to remain at sea until after the combat, they should be moved in noncombat movement.
-
Q1 European Rulebook p. 10 and 37: The US may declare war at the beginning of their Collect Income phase of the 3rd turn.
So can they then collect 25 IPCs bonus for their national objective on their 3rd turn, during that same collect income phase.Yes.
Well, I didn’t copy the conversation well.( It can be found on the first page of this thread). Krieg, you replied yes, but if the US declares war at beginning of collect income phase, wouldnt they b at war before they actually collect the income? -
I have a ton of little questoins that came up while playing (AAG40.2) and i doubt i can remember them all. Some aren’t 1940-related, but bear with me :-P
1. before USA and URSS declare war / are declared, can they activate pro-allies neutrals?
2. what if f.ex. URSS invades a neutral before being at war? If any allied power attacks a neutral minor power, all true-neutrals will become pro-axis, but if URSS (while neutral) invades a neutral minor power, what happens?
….
…
Someone posted no as answer to #1, but activating pro allied by an allie is a noncombat move done on the noncombat phase. Can someone please explain why it wouldnt be allowed when not at war if it isnt combat? -
Q1 European Rulebook p. 10 and 37: The US may declare war at the beginning of their Collect Income phase of the 3rd turn.
So can they then collect 25 IPCs bonus for their national objective on their 3rd turn, during that same collect income phase.Yes.
Well, I didn’t copy the conversation well.( It can be found on the first page of this thread). Krieg, you replied yes, but if the US declares war at beginning of collect income phase, wouldnt they b at war before they actually collect the income?That is the point!
They collect the 25ipcs bonus.
-
I have a ton of little questoins that came up while playing (AAG40.2) and i doubt i can remember them all. Some aren’t 1940-related, but bear with me :-P
1. before USA and URSS declare war / are declared, can they activate pro-allies neutrals?
2. what if f.ex. URSS invades a neutral before being at war? If any allied power attacks a neutral minor power, all true-neutrals will become pro-axis, but if URSS (while neutral) invades a neutral minor power, what happens?
….
…Someone posted no as answer to #1, but activating pro allied by an allie is a noncombat move done on the noncombat phase. Can someone please explain why it wouldnt be allowed when not at war if it isnt combat?
From page 15 of the Europe Rulebook:
Neutral Powers: When a power is not at war with anyone, it is neutral. Powers that begin the game neutral, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, aren’t initially part of the Allies or the Axis. The Axis powers are on the opposite side of these neutral powers, but they are not yet considered enemies. While a power remains neutral, it operates under even tighter restrictions. A neutral power can’t move land or air units into or through neutral territories. It can’t move units into or through territories or onto ships belonging to another power or use another power’s naval bases, nor can another power move land or air units into or through its territories or onto its ships or use its naval bases.
-
As for the why, probably to stop ussr from increasing its income through war acts, such as collecting allies like Persia
-
True. Claiming friendly neutrals is definitely a semi-aggressive act, as it represents enlisting that country in the war effort (which a neutral power is not yet a part of). The enhanced neutral power restrictions are also designed to represent the diplomatic stance of not antagonizing a belligerent power in an attempt to maintain neutrality.
-
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
-
@aequitas:
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
Siam to India is 3 movement and they have 5 with the airbase. They could land in Yunnan or Shan State if controlled by Japan at start of the turn.
You mention carriers and UK destroyer so I’m guessing Japan does not control Yunnan or Shan State.
If you are relying on the carriers, the attack is legal because the carriers could pick up any surviving aircraft in Z41 (or Z40 or Z78) which is 2 spaces from India. I’ll stop here, because I’m not sure if I’m understanding your situation. Please ask follow up questions if necessary, thanks. Or provide a screen shot maybe, that would help a lot -
@aequitas:
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
I suspect it’s legal, but I’d have to see all planes and landing spaces. Indeed - the carriers with combats could NCM off india and allow a landing.
Ceylon could also be a valid landing space if it’s been taken previously.
-
@aequitas:
Situation:
Japan has an AB in Siam w. 4 Ftr’s there. The IJN with two CV’s is also parked in sz 37 off of Malaya.
On Japans CM, 4 ftr’s starting from that AB heading to India and performing an Airstrike, meaning, they only attack the ground Units there (1x Ftr,2x TacB and a Marine).Burma is UK controlled and a DD as blocker in sz 38 as well as a CR in sz 41 are under attack.
Q: Is the CM of the Japanese Ftr’s leagal or not?
Siam to India is 3 movement and they have 5 with the airbase. They could land in Yunnan or Shan State if controlled by Japan at start of the turn.
You mention carriers and UK destroyer so I’m guessing Japan does not control Yunnan or Shan State.
If you are relying on the carriers, the attack is legal because the carriers could pick up any surviving aircraft in Z41 (or Z40 or Z78) which is 2 spaces from India. I’ll stop here, because I’m not sure if I’m understanding your situation. Please ask follow up questions if necessary, thanks. Or provide a screen shot maybe, that would help a lotJapan could only NCM to SZ78 or SZ40 if it clears SZ41 (or perhaps SZ38). So long as Japan is attacking one of those SZs, the attack is legal. If no attack is made, the CVs have no possibility of catching the planes so the attack is illegal if no land based landing site is possible.
Suggested Topics
