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)
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@krieghund good answer but only partially filled.
“Partially filled”?
-
@sovietishcat said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
But then the tt cannot do anything else afterwards? Ie if I move my tt out of the sea zone, I cannot load it with units and lets say activate a Pro allies or pro axis territory.
or load units and leave the sea zone ( not doing a amphibious assault), because you are doing a non combat move in a combat move phase.
No. The only way units may be loaded and/or offloaded during combat movement is for an amphibious assault.
-
@krieghund Thank you, this is what we have waited for.
Now it is filled! :grinning:
The Sub hack prevents the opponent from load and offloading accordingly and hinders it. Yes you can amphib and therefor load and off load, but you can’t use the involved TT for offloading normaly, and that is what this was all about.
-
Thank you Krieghund for your help and time!
-
I have another Global 1940 2E rule clarification question. This one may sound stupid. If you purchase a Minor IC at the beginning of a turn, then move one land unit into a friendly neutral territory that is worth 2ipcs, can you PLACE your newly purchased Minor IC on the “claimed” friendly neutral on the same turn?
I read a post on this forum dating back to 2013 which advocates germany purchasing a minor IC turn 1, moving an infantry into finland, and then placing that minor IC in finland. I dont think its a good idea, I just want to know if it is a legal move.
Another application (if this move is legal) would be ULK transporting a tank and infantry to friendly neutral greece, and placing a minor IC down in greece (same turn)Please advise.
-
@greyleaf2
From Eur rules, p23:
“Move the newly purchased units from the mobilization zone on the game board to eligible spaces you have controlled
since the start of your turn.”So since you would be putting the industrial complex on the board in the “Mobilize New Units” phase, you fail this test.
That was kind of hard to find.
-
In G40, if a defender has a sub And destroyer, the attacker has a Sub and some planes but no attacking destroyer, doesn’t the defending Sub with it’s First strike Fire first before the attacking Sub?
-
@nolimit I can’t see why it would go before the attacking sub.
-
@lennardf Not Me, but My opponent eventually Saw the light though!!!😁
-
@Nolimit I think your interpretation is correct.
Sub surprise strikes happen before the main combat rounds
Destroyers prevent surprise strikesSo in this case the defender’s side has a DD so the attacking sub does not get a surprise strike, but the attacker’s side does not have a DD, so the defending sub will surprise strike
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/13666/submarine-alpha-2-rules/2
-
Yep surfer
-
Tried searching and all I get is “No Matches Found” lol
Is a transport considered a surface warship for the Italian Mediterranean Objective
Thanks
-
@barnee Nope. A warship = surface vessel with attack value. Not sure where this is in the rules so if you want to wait for someone more proficient in rules to weigh in, I understand.
-
@barnee But you can improve your search results by looking in “Titles and Posts” rather than just the default “Titles”. Several posts describe warships.
-
@barnee said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Tried searching and all I get is “No Matches Found” lol
Is a transport considered a surface warship for the Italian Mediterranean Objective
Thanks
Searching the PDF-rulebooks is easier. While there are many mentions of the fact in the rulebook, the most clear definiton is given on page 31 Europe 1940.2, unit profiles, sea units:
“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.”
-
-
@panther said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
“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.”Edit
Yes this is what I was missing. I went to the Objectives
• 5 IPCs if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean sea (sea zones 92 through 99). Theme:
Propaganda and strategic advantageI surprise myself to this day by missing the obvious lol
Still don’t know why my search didn’t return a result lol
-
@barnee A reasonable improvement to the rules would be:
if there are no Allied surface warships (battleships, carriers,
cruisers, and destroyers) -
P Panther forked this topic on
-
I can’t find the rule(s) that tell about:
When a unit of one ally is on another ally’s transport - can the ground unit amphibiously assault from the ally’s transport when it is his turn?
If so, can the defender scramble against it? If so, what if the attacker has no naval or air units in the zone to support it? Does the defending fighter stop the amphibious assault? Surely it doesn’t destroy anything… (the offloading ground unit or the ally’s transport)?Thanks - somebody asked me and we weren’t sure, and now it’s applicable in my game. Seems like it wouldn’t even be a very rare situation…
For anyone reading, I understand there may be a house rule for “balanced mod 4”, but I am playing “balanced mod 3” and I believe it uses the 2nd edition rulebook for this situation.I scoured the 2nd edition rulebook in what I thought were all the applicable sections, and I couldn’t figure out how to apply them to amphibious assaults from ally’s transports - I only saw the rule that says you can share aircraft carriers and transports with your allies… Thanks!!
-
@gamerman01 The only rules in the Rulebook specific to this situation are on page 21 (Europe) where it talks about multi-national forces, saying that your units load onto and offload from your ally’s transport on your turn. The FAQ elaborates further, saying this:
Q. Say the United Kingdom launches an amphibious assault from a US transport without any supporting UK sea or air units in the sea zone, and then the defender scrambles. What happens?
A. In effect, nothing happens. The US transport doesn’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the US’s turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed.