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)
-
Mostly the same, but these things have been changed.
SHIPYARDS - Cruisers in improved shipyards are now 9 instead of 10
Heavy bombers have been clarified to say “strategic bombers” so as to clearly exclude tactical bombers
ROCKETS -
Rockets have been changed to fire from airbases instead of AA guns
Rockets can fire 4 spaces instead of 3
Rockets can damage bases - before it was just IC’s
A single facility can be targeted by multiple rockets per turn, also!IMPROVED MECH - Improved mech can now blitz without tanks
I think that is a complete list of all changes. You can compare the 2 rulebooks now to make sure.
-
thanks again gamer!
-
Sure! As you can see, in most cases you’re gonna want rockets and not improved mech, war bonds, or advanced artillery!! :-D
-
Quick question, is it legal to place a naval base in a territory that doesn’t border a sea zone?
-
Quick question, is it legal to place a naval base in a territory that doesn’t border a sea zone?
As a corollary, is it legal to collect less income than you are entitled to, if you wish?
-
It is not legal to collect less money, and it is not legal to build a naval base in a territory that does not border a sea zone. I have asked both of those questions before, is why I know the answer for sure.
You also cannot build duplicate bases in the same territory.
-
Why would you want to put a naval base in a land locked territory?
-
@IKE:
Why would you want to put a naval base in a land locked territory?
to make a statement. I’m so far ahead i can spend money on useless high ticket items :lol:
-
Battleships are the coolest
-
but they “can be” useful!
-
-
but they “can be” useful!
You can build them in sz128 and make them harmless.
no way, they can defend transports against air attacks!!!
-
but they “can be” useful!
You can build them in sz128 and make them harmless.
no way, they can defend transports against air attacks!!!
Then don’t build transports!
-
but they “can be” useful!
You can build them in sz128 and make them harmless.
no way, they can defend transports against air attacks!!!
Then don’t build transports!
Fine, but they can still kill aircraft that attack them!!!
-
Subs in that sz?
-
@IKE:
Why would you want to put a naval base in a land locked territory?
Air and naval bases can stop blitzing (and can be worthwhile for this in rare scenarios).
-
Brilliant, Wheat
Never thought of that. Guess you can always build an airbase -
In this scenario there’s a Japanese fleet in sz26 with several air units, carriers, a dd, and a bb. Additionally there is a ftr/tac combo in sz6. US has a small fleet in sz10, air to scramble to help cover said fleet, a blocker in sz12, and still hold Hawaii. Japan sends all the air in sz26 plus the air from sz6 to hit sz10. Additionally, they send their single dd to clear the blocker as the NB is not in their hands and they can’t kamikaze their planes.
Is Japan obligated to stay in sz12 till the end (regardless of the result) or can they go for a single round and then retreat if they survive? Does the order of battles play a part in whether the dd can retreat or not? IE, say the sz12 is rolled first and the planes theoretically could survive, so it forces Japan to stay vs retreating. Or could the dd retreat if the sz10 battle has already been rolled and the ftr/tac from sz6 didn’t survive said battle?
-
The Destroyer may retreat from Z12 after 1 round.
The rule for ensuring aircraft can land is only effective for the COMBAT MOVEMENT phase.
Then, in the NON-COMBAT MOVEMENT phase, all carriers MUST pick up fighters IF ABLE.There are no rules for the CONDUCT COMBAT phase regarding saving aircraft, so retreats are legal even though they jeopardize air.
-
Thanks!
Suggested Topics
