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)
-
Q: Attacker has an AB on Gib and launches an attack on Yugoslavia and lands in Tobruk.
Is this legal since he has to fly over Neutral Spain?
Even if he decides to DOW Neutrals this turn and attacks it?- You CAN’T fly over neutrals
a) Except to attack it directly
So can he fly over in the same turn were he is attacking Neutral Spain?
Mongolia:
-
If Japan attacks a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia, all of Mongolia is immediately Russian
a) If Japan attacks Mongolia in the same combat move (as attacking a Russian controlled territory bordering Mongolia), they break neutrality of all strict neutrals
b) This is the ONLY way all of Mongolia will immediately turn Russian without territories needing to be activated. -
If Russia attacks Korea or a Japanese controlled territory bordering Mongolia, then the Mongolians will never join Russia as in #1 above
If neither of the above takes place, Mongolia continues on as a strict neutral, but
- Will NOT go pro-Axis if the Allies break neutrality elsewhere
a) Mongolia ONLY goes pro-Axis if Russia directly attacks Mongolia. This would break neutrality around the world (all strict neutrals go pro-the other side).
i) Any OTHER Ally can attack Mongolia directly and this will break neutrality around the world, but the rest of Mongolia will stay neutral
b) Mongolia WILL go pro-Allied if the Axis break strict neutrality anywhere, including Mongolia
Neutrals:
- You can’t move a tank through a friendly neutral that you just activated
a) You CAN blitz strict neutrals and unfriendly neutrals
b) You also can’t non-com mech or tanks through the friendly neutral that you just took control of. - You CAN’T land air in any neutral that was neutral at the beginning of your turn
a) You CAN land air in a neutral that has been attacked previously and joined your side (the infantry are still not controlled by a playable power because the territory has not been activated and is not controlled by any playable power yet) - You CAN’T fly over neutrals
a) Except to attack it directly
b) After attacking it, you CAN fly off where-ever you want as long as you don’t fly over another neutral
c) You CAN fly over a neutral that has been attacked previously, because it is actually no longer a neutral even if it was not conquered. It has joined the opposing side. You can do this in the non-combat move immediately following the attack. - You activate a friendly neutral with an infantry, artillery, mech, or tank. You cannot activate a friendly neutral with only an AAA gun.
- Despite what Triple A says, you do NOT declare war on neutrals. You simply “attack” them (individually).
Beware: There are currently a lot of these rules that Triple A does not currently adhere to correctly. You are responsible for knowing the rules yourself. Don’t rely on Triple A for rule interpretation. Just because it allows it, doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Thank you guys for your quick Response as usually!
AetV
- You CAN’T fly over neutrals
-
@aequitas:
Q: Attacker has an AB on Gib and launches an attack on Yugoslavia and lands in Tobruk.
Is this legal since he has to fly over Neutral Spain?
Even if he decides to DOW Neutrals this turn and attacks it?- You CAN’T fly over neutrals
a) Except to attack it directly
So can he fly over in the same turn were he is attacking Neutral Spain?
No. This is illegal during the same combat move phase. “All combat movement is considered to take place at the same time.”
- You CAN’T fly over neutrals
-
You don’t DOW neutrals - that is only Triple A wording. There’s no such thing in the rulebook.
You attack neutrals individually. So if he’s attacking Yugoslavia he can’t fly over neutral Spain.
Now I notice your question “even if I attack Spain at the same time” - so take P@nther’s answer together with mine.
I will add - since the air flying over Spain to get to Yugoslavia is not attacking Spain, it is not able to fly over Spain.
-
@aequitas:
The Allied Player attacked Portugal and Spain on his turn as the US and flew planes over Spain to Yugoslavia.
Doing so implies a sort of order in combat movements, such as:
First combat movement: Attack Spain so Spain is no longer neutral.
afterwards:
Second combat movement: Fly over Spain to attack Yugoslavia.As written above “All combat movement is considered to take place at the same time.” (Rulebook Europe, page 13).
So the implied order is not possible.At the start of the combat movement phase and before all combat moves Spain is neutral. Now all combat moves occur simultaneously.
And Spain losing its neutrality is a consequence of a combat move.
-
Thank you Panther for clarifying it.
-
if a defender scrams a ftr into a sz in which defender has a sub making the sea zone hostile to amphibious attack, can the attacker ignore the sub in round 2 of combat round if the attacker kills the fighter in round one?
Point being, without the defending fighter, the sub could be ignored. If the fighter is killed, can the sub then be ignored, or once encountered it must be fought until it is destroyed or submerges?
-
if a defender scrams a ftr into a sz in which defender has a sub making the sea zone hostile to amphibious attack, can the attacker ignore the sub in round 2 of combat round if the attacker kills the fighter in round one?
Point being, without the defending fighter, the sub could be ignored. If the fighter is killed, can the sub then be ignored, or once encountered it must be fought until it is destroyed or submerges?
it must be fought :-P
-
@P@nther:
@aequitas:
The Allied Player attacked Portugal and Spain on his turn as the US and flew planes over Spain to Yugoslavia.
Doing so implies a sort of order in combat movements, such as:
First combat movement: Attack Spain so Spain is no longer neutral.
afterwards:
Second combat movement: Fly over Spain to attack Yugoslavia.As written above “All combat movement is considered to take place at the same time.” (Rulebook Europe, page 13).
So the implied order is not possible.**At the start of the combat movement phase and before all combat moves Spain is neutral. Now all combat moves occur simultaneously.
And Spain losing its neutrality is a consequence of a combat move.**
that is it, in short terms
-
if a defender scrams a ftr into a sz in which defender has a sub making the sea zone hostile to amphibious attack, can the attacker ignore the sub in round 2 of combat round if the attacker kills the fighter in round one?
No, ignoring subs is only a combat movement issue. Once combat begins, there is no ignoring subs/transports.
Point being, without the defending fighter, the sub could be ignored. If the fighter is killed, can the sub then be ignored, or once encountered it must be fought until it is destroyed or submerges?
The latter, and see again my answer above
-
So if an Italian tank is in Italian controlled Egypt, Trans-Jordan is British controlled and has no units in it, and Iraq has not been activated, on Italy’s turn may their tank from Egypt to Trans-Jordan and into Iraq to activate it?
-
So if an Italian tank is in Italian controlled Egypt, Trans-Jordan is British controlled and has no units in it, and Iraq has not been activated, on Italy’s turn may their tank from Egypt to Trans-Jordan and into Iraq to activate it?
No. Moving into Trans-Jordan has to happen during combat movement phase, and moving into Iraq would happen on non-combat movement phase. The tank can’t move in both phases.
-
So if an Italian tank is in Italian controlled Egypt, Trans-Jordan is British controlled and has no units in it, and Iraq has not been activated, on Italy’s turn may their tank from Egypt to Trans-Jordan and into Iraq to activate it?
No. Moving into Trans-Jordan has to happen during combat movement phase, and moving into Iraq would happen on non-combat movement phase. The tank can’t move in both phases.
So you could capture Trans Jordan with another Italian unit during combat move and then move the tank to Iraq in non combat. That way the tank is still where you want it to be at the end of turn, you control both territories, and Iraq infantry will be activated.
-
Is the Chinese Flying Tiger Fighter allowed to fly to a sea zone within range to attack Japanese ships? For instance, could the fighter based in Yunnan fly to SZ 36 to sink a lone Japanese transport? China rules on page 10 seem to indicate that it cannot.
-
No. Flying Tigers can not leave Chinese lands, except Hong Kong and Burma.
-
I detest that rule with a passion. :x
I call for revolution.
-
In a sea battle where the defender has transport(s) among other combat units, if after a given combat round the attacker were to score exactly enough hits to clear the defending combat units and still have surviving attacking units, is the attacker obligated to remain in the sea zone and also kill the transport(s)? Or does the attacker have the option to retreat and leave the transport(s) alive?
-
Morning Tizkit.
Yes. It must, if all hits have been allocated to ships.
No, he does not have that option. The attacker cannot retreat , if all defending units have been eliminated. -
@wittmann:
The attacker cannot retreat , if all defending units have been eliminated.
He meant all defending units with a combat value. (all non-transports)
Similarly, you cannot retreat from AA guns only - they are destroyed and the attacker must take over the territory with everything that’s there.
-
May Japan attack Persia (pro allies neutral) whithout declaring war on England?
-
@V.:
May Japan attack Persia (pro allies neutral) whithout declaring war on England?
Yes, there is no such connection between attacking an unfriendly neutral and declaring war on a power in the rules.
Suggested Topics
