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)
-
Thanks guys. I was 99.9% sure this was correct but triplea doesn’t allow it. It is an oversight in the program but I just wanted to make certain before I roll a bunch of dice for an attack that needs the landing spot.
I will temporarily edit the territory to German and do my move then edit it back to pro-axis once the planes are landed.
Thanks
-
Thanks guys. I was 99.9% sure this was correct but triplea doesn’t allow it. It is an oversight in the program but I just wanted to make certain before I roll a bunch of dice for an attack that needs the landing spot.
Indeed, TripleA does not follow this rule. Actually this issue is mentioned in the TripleA-Global-Map game notes:
Rules specific to 1940 the engine does not do, but you must follow:
…
(PE) You may not land air units in Friendly Neutrals, including the same turn they are captured, unless they have been previously attacked.
… -
cool, thanks Panther
-
Can USA land planes and ground units in Russian territories on the pacific map when Russia is not at war with Japan? Does Russia need to declare war on Japan if I want American bombers to land in Siberia after hitting Japan?
-
Can USA land planes and ground units in Russian territories on the pacific map when Russia is not at war with Japan? Does Russia need to declare war on Japan if I want American bombers to land in Siberia after hitting Japan?
No. USSR needs to be at war with Japan. USSR has a special rule.
-
Yes Russia has to declare war on Japan so that USA bombers can land in East Russia (Siberia)
-
Japan has no scrambling units available to sz 6. Japan has a few subs in sz 6, but no surface warships. USA can move in an american sub and loaded transports to sz 6. In this case an ampibious assult is allowed because no units can scramble and the transport is escorted by a warship (submarine), correct?
-
Yes
-
-
Yes
but only if the attacking units and transport survive the battle
There is no sea battle. The rule behind the given scenario is about the enemy submarines being ignored by the attacker:
@rulebook:
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at
least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase. -
so sub is a warship too?
-
so sub is a warship too?
Sure, see
@rulebook:
Sea Units
Battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and transports move, attack, and defend in sea zones. They
can’t move into territories. For the sake of these rules, the following are surface warships: battleships, carriers, cruisers, and
destroyers. Transports are not warships. Submarines are warships, but they are not surface warships. -
Got a G40 2nd edition home rule, need an opinion. Me and my cousins decided that it doesn’t make sense that AAA can’t fire during strategic bombings so we started to role 1 die for each AAA present. Is this sensible?
-
Got a G40 2nd edition home rule, need an opinion. Me and my cousins decided that it doesn�t make sense that AAA can�t fire during strategic bombings so we started to role 1 die for each AAA present. Is this sensible?
In G40, ICs and facilities have inbuilt AA instead of needing to position an AA gun in the territory. I personally think this rule change has gone in the wrong direction. The problem with one earlier rule is that an AA Gun still fired on escorting fighters. That was a bit unfair.
-
The built-in AA for facilities means there is always AA fire against strategic bombers on bombing runs. I’m wondering if you guys were unaware of this rule? With an AA shot against every single strat bomber on every run, it would be excessive to add AAA units to the defense.
-
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
The rules say you may not fly over a friendly neutral, but also say that moving a land unit into the territory ends its neutrality.
There’s also this phrase which talks about not moving “through” friendly neutrals, but could be taken as referring to land units specifically:
“They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war” -
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
No, because:
@rulebook:
A power may not attack a friendly neutral nor fly air
units over it. However, a power that is at war may move
land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a
noncombat move (see “Noncombat Move,” page 21). This
moves the territory out of its neutral status at the end of the
Noncombat Move phase.
…HTH :-)
-
@P@nther:
During the non-combat move phase, may air units fly over a territory that was friendly neutral but made allied during the same phase?
For example, Itlay moves a ground unit into Iraq to take control of it. May Italy also fly over Iraq in the same non-combat move phase? (but land elsewhere)
No, because:
@rulebook:
A power may not attack a friendly neutral nor fly air
units over it. However, a power that is at war may move
land units into (but not through) a friendly neutral as a
noncombat move (see “Noncombat Move,” page 21). This
moves the territory out of its neutral status at the end of the
Noncombat Move phase.
…HTH :-)
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
-
…
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
This case is different: Holland is not a friendly neutral, so this scenario actually is unrelated to Tizkit’s question.
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
-
@P@nther:
…
i thought that only anzac can land planes on dutch lands in ncm
This case is different: Holland is not a friendly neutral, so this scenario actually is unrelated to Tizkit’s question.
Every Ally may land planes on Dutch territories in NCM provided those territories have not been captured by the Axis and have been friendly from the beginning of the turn. It is only UK and Anzac that may bring land units into friendly Dutch territories during NCM to take control.
Please see this clarification of Dutch rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.msg1115406#msg1115406
but what about Italy and Iraq, are they the same like ANZAC and Dutch?
Suggested Topics
