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)
-
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.
-
Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:
- The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
- If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?
-
@The:
Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:
- The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
- If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?
So in a second round of combat a German fighter and transport are attacked by a Russian submarine and cruiser.
Autodestruction of a defenseless transport takes only place if “in a sea battle… the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking”.As long as there is a German fighter, the German transport won’t be autodestroyed.
However hits of the German fighter can only be assigned to the Russian cruiser.
Hits of the Russian submarine can only be assigned to the German transport.The Russians may retreat as long as there is a defending unit “that can … fire at a valid target”.
As the German fighter may fire at the Russian cruiser, this condition is given. -
@P@nther:
@The:
Soviet sub and cruiser attack German cruiser and transport in SZ 113. Germans scramble two fighters. Soviets score two hits in the first round of combat, eliminating enemy cruiser and one fighter. Germans miss. This raises a couple of questions:
- The remaining German combat unit (a fighter) can’t hit the Soviet sub, so is the German transport now considered “defenseless” and immediately eliminated, or do the Soviets have to kill the fighter first?
- If the transport is immediately eliminated, can the Soviets retreat prior to a second round of combat with the remaining fighter?
So in a second round of combat a German fighter and transport are attacked by a Russian submarine and cruiser.
Autodestruction of a defenseless transport takes only place if “in a sea battle… the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking”.As long as there is a German fighter, the German transport won’t be autodestroyed.
However hits of the German fighter can only be assigned to the Russian cruiser.
Hits of the Russian submarine can only be assigned to the German transport.The Russians may retreat as long as there is a defending unit “that can … fire at a valid target”.
As the German fighter may fire at the Russian cruiser, this condition is given.If I’m reading this right, the German transport would be considered defenseless, were it not for the presence of the Russian cruiser? In other words, had the Soviets attacked with sub only and scored a hit in the first round, killing the German cruiser…the scrambled fighters couldn’t hit the sub (and vice versa), so the transport would be eliminated, AND…with only fighters remaining in the SZ, the Russian sub could not retreat?
Glad I’m sitting down, as I feel a bit lightheaded. :-D
-
Correct.
-
@The:
If I’m reading this right, the German transport would be considered defenseless, were it not for the presence of the Russian cruiser? In other words, had the Soviets attacked with sub only and scored a hit in the first round, killing the German cruiser…the scrambled fighters couldn’t hit the sub (and vice versa), so the transport would be eliminated, AND…with only fighters remaining in the SZ, the Russian sub could not retreat?
Glad I’m sitting down, as I feel a bit lightheaded. :-D
The key to remember is you need unassigned hits to destroy the transport. In your scenario you didn’t have any hits left to sink the cruiser, so you’d have to either retreat or stay for another round of combat.
-
What are the current national objectives for 1940 global?
-
What are the current national objectives for 1940 global?
Those stated in the rulebook. Too much to quote it here so please see:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28703.0 -
Having a bit of a rules dispute over how the TripleA program interprets the change from neutrality to allied b/w powers.
The scenario is Japan declares on UK on J2. Russia and Japan are already at war. On USA2, USA declares on Japan/Germany/Italy.
Should USA be able to land planes in Russia or other Allied territories on this turn (USA2) or have we been playing the game wrong up until now?
-
Just for clarification, the case that USA can’t land air in Russia would be based on quotes from the rulebook like this
"No air units can land in any territory that was not friendly
at the start of your turn, including any territory that was just
captured or converted from a friendly neutral by you this turn. "and the assumption that USA declares prior to the Combat Move phase, which is after the start of the turn.
So which is it? Does Russian territory immediately become friendly when it becomes allied to the USA?
Have we been playing wrong if we are allowing USA to land stuff in Africa or London or Russia after they declare in this scenario?
If we interpret it this way, it would also be illegal for Russia to move units into China on the same turn they declare on Japan.
Without clear language in the rules one way or another, we’re going to need an official ruling on this one.
-
You’re right, this issue prevents moves such as the yunnan stack strategy, which have been accepted up until now.
No problem for land units, only air units are the issue.
I want a clarification from krieghund. Or perhaps we could just add a rule to bm to permit this?
-
@rulebook:
Noncombat Move
Where units can land
Air Units: An air unit must end its move in an eligible landing space. Air units can land in any territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the current turn.The issue arises because of the USA starting as neutral power, not allied with anyone, other than other powers starting already belonging to an alliance.
Declaring war in general occurs at the beginning of the Combat Move phase:
@same:
War must be declared
on your turn at the beginning of the Combat Move
phase, before any combat movements are made,
unless otherwise specified in the political rules.So at the start of the US turn, the Soviet territory is not friendly (=allied) to the USA.
It becomes friendly only later during (at the beginning of) Combat Move Phase.See the discussion starting from here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1796255#msg1796255
Suggested Topics
