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)
-
@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]
Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ) -
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@Myygames said in [Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)]
Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)
Thank you for giving me a break. Your last post made me look deeper!
Now I have it written in my rulebook. (I didn’t find this question in the FAQ)not a silly question then! Hahaha
-
@Krieghund Assuming that I have a friendly sea zone,can I offload from my ally’s transport on my combat move and then, during my non-combat move, load more units onto the same transport?
-
@ampdrive No. Using your ally’s transport doesn’t exempt it from the rule that a transport may not load in the same turn after offloading.
-
@Krieghund Thank you for the timely reply.I thought,just maybe,this was a way to more efficiently utilise US transports with UK land units in sz 110.
-
Man, I don’t remember ever coming across this.
I scoured the rulebooks but couldn’t find, also the FAQs
You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.
It appears to me that you don’t have to say whether you’re actually attacking the sub(s) until you decide to roll that battle, that sea zone. (So you never need to declare ahead of time, just decide when you get to that sea zone)
Is this correct? Surely I missed something somewhere.
Triple A (which we never trust, like P@nther has in his signature) makes you say whether you are attacking transports/subs before any dice are rolled.
-
I realize you can’t move units in the combat movement phase that are not going to conduct combat.
However, in this situation a destroyer was escorting a transport over subs, so the destroyer must be moved in combat movement. Then does that destroyer have the option of attacking the subs, and does the player get to wait until getting to that battle in the conduct combat phase to actually decide to attack or not?
I know you can ignore subs in the combat movement phase, but do you have to declare that you’re not going to attack them? I can’t find that you have to declare in advance.
Can’t wait to hear this answer.
-
Is not it still like you wrote: “You can ignore subs/transports in combat movement phase.” So during combat MOVEMENT you decide to ignore or not?
-
That’s the whole point of my question.
I can’t see in the rulebook that you declare anything about attacking subs in combat movement. -
@gamerman01 You must decide during combat movement whether or not you are ignoring enemy subs/transports.
-
And so you have to tell your opponent.
Curious where it says this in rulebook?
-
@gamerman01 It doesn’t say it explicitly, but the intent of combat movement is to either initiate or avoid combat, so it follows that the intent must be stated when the movement is made.
-
Nice!! That’s what I wanted, and as always you are so fast
Thanks Krieghund, have a nice day
-
Just for fun:
Kamikazes were involved in my situation also 😎
So it can be a big deal that you have to declare before kamikaze attacks rather than after.But it didn’t matter because I had 2 mighty subs that @oysteilo didn’t dare attack with a single destroyer in an amphibious assault attempt. He wanted Korea, and he got it. I never saw it coming.
-
Ok. Here’s a related amphib assault question – no kamikazi though.
US assaults FIC with 1 Sub + transports
Japan has 3 subsAs the US attacker, I can ignore the subs and launch an amphib assault, if the transport is escorted by a “warship” because of the following in the rules
“A transport that is part of an amphibious assault must end its movement in a friendly sea zone (or one that could become friendly as result of sea combat) from which it can conduct the assault. 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.”
Subs do not make a SZ friendly or hostile. So what effect does the escorting sub do?
One interpretation is that a sub is a “warship” and suppresses the other subs. But I see it equally possible that “warship” = surface vessel, and thus the escort cannot suppress the subs. Combat will occur if the defender wishes to fight–he has the option to submerge. -
Subs are warships - just not surface warships (see the heading under Sea Units on p. 31 of the Europe rulebook).
-
@matttodd1 ok. Thanks for that clarification
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
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!!
So I have this situation in one of my games, potentially. It is BM4. I am wondering…what do you mean by “I understand there may be a house rule for “balanced mod 4"”? I know it’s been awhile… I appreciate any guidance you can give!
-
Yes that was over 2 years ago, but I can answer.
Only difference between BM4 and BM3 is 14 cost bombers
BM3 uses 2nd edition rules for generally most things, including this. So there are no “house rules” for BM4, where I wasn’t sure about that in 2022So, pretty sure you can amphibiously assault off an Ally’s transport on your turn (see Krieghund’s reply).
I know for sure a scramble stops that assault (see Krieghund’s reply to that old post)
-
@gamerman01 Thanks for the quick reply!