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)
-
An attacked neutral is a friendly neutral and is now a friendly territory, that none of the controllable powers control.
Once it’s attacked, it’s not neutral at all. It is allied with the side opposite the side that attacked it. This is important, because the restrictions of a neutral territory no longer apply to it.
-
here is part of why i’m confused, the rules are not precise in their wording on this point…
“If the attack upon the neutral territory is unsuccessful (the territory is not captured), it’s no longer considered neutral and becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it. For example, if Germany attacked Yugoslavia but failed to capture it, after the attack Yugoslavia would join the Allies. Any remaining defending units stay in the territory, but can’t move. The territory remains uncontrolled, but units from the side it’s now allied with can move into it and take control of it and its remaining units in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral.”
this is a tricky one… i THOUGHT “friendly neutral” in this sentence should actually read “pro-allied or pro-axis neutral”. BUT friendly neutral is actually a special status, which means any neutral that has been attacked but not conquered… so to me the wording is misleading. it says “in the same way as if it were a friendly neutral” when it should say, it now BECOMES a friendly neutral, which means x, y, and z…
RIGHT???
-
this is a tricky one… i THOUGHT “friendly neutral” in this sentence should actually read “pro-allied or pro-axis neutral”.
Yes, that’s what it means. That’s what a friendly neutral is, if you’re on the side that it’s “pro”.
BUT friendly neutral is actually a special status, which means any neutral that has been attacked but not conquered…
No, it isn’t. See my last post.
-
An attacked neutral is a friendly neutral and is now a friendly territory, that none of the controllable powers control.
Once it’s attacked, it’s not neutral at all.� It is allied with the side opposite the side that attacked it.� This is important, because the restrictions of a neutral territory no longer apply to it.
based on this, the word neutral would no longer apply to yugo after a german hit and run. it would have to have a different term than “friendly neutral”… so i think my understanding is correct that friendly neutral is the same as pro-axis or pro-allied neutral. after ANY neutral is attacked, it takes on the status of friendly territory? perhaps or maybe a better term, which means it is now joined with one side for all intents and purposes except for income and control of it’s standing army (if any remains). that standing army will be activated by whichever friendly power enters it first with a land unit, and that power will then also receive the territory income.
-
Exactly.
-
maybe we need to call them FRIENDLY, but previously neutral, territories. FBPN
-
so any attacked neutral if not conquered, becomes a FBPN territory. if a true neutral (or more than one) is/are attacked for the first time, the ones actually attacked become FBPN territories if not conquered. all other true neutral territories become friendly neutrals at that moment.
-
Yep
Good idea to have a special term for neutrals that have been attacked but not conquered. Because it is a unique status, as you have discovered.
-
key point… you can fly over a FBPN territory with aircraft like any other hostile territory but you cannot fly over a neutral with aircraft during combat move unless and only if you are attacking it with all said aircraft.
-
I have seen it in TripleA, so the question is in Alpha 3+
Can UK in NCM move a transport with only a AAgun to sz 86 than unload the transport to activate Brazil with only a AAgun?
-
I have seen it in TripleA, so the question is in Alpha 3+
Can UK in NCM move a transport with only a AAgun to sz 86 than unload the transport to activate Brazil with only a AAgun?
No. Lone AA guns are not sufficient to take control of a territory. It must be infantry, artillery, mech, or tank.
-
I have seen it in TripleA, so the question is in Alpha 3+
Can UK in NCM move a transport with only a AAgun to sz 86 than unload the transport to activate Brazil with only a AAgun?
No. Lone AA guns are not sufficient to take control of a territory. It must be infantry, artillery, mech, or tank.
I disagree. Where in the rulebook is this mentioned? This is a quote from the Europe 1940 2e rulebook (bolding by me):
@Europe:
Friendly neutrals may not be attacked, and air units may not fly over them. They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war (see Noncombat Move,” page 22).
AAA are land units. These rules and the AAA rules do not disallow AAA from doing this.
-
It’s not friendly - it’s a friendly neutral. There is a difference, in that it is still neutral. A friendly territory is one that is controlled by you or another member of your alliance. A friendly neutral does not meet that requirement.
There is a procedure for converting a friendly neutral territory into a friendly territory, which involves moving a land unit with an attack value into it. Until then, no other unit may be moved into it, as it is still neutral (though friendly neutral).
You may be right that it isn’t clear in the rulebook, but you’re still oh so wrong! Krieghund is the rulebook, and this is what he has told us.
AA cannot activate a friendly neutral by itself.
-
AAE40 2nd Edition Rulebook, page 28:
Only infantry, artillery, mechanized infantry, and tanks can capture hostile territories or convert friendly neutrals.
-
Sure enough!
Very easy to miss that one spot, though…
P-Unit has a good point that you should be able to read about that under “friendly neutrals” or under the details for “AAA guns” :-)
But it is in there! Read all 41 pages and memorize every word of them! :wink:
-
Speaking of no combat values, I remember you answered my question that you can’t “attack” with transports only, because there is no attack value.
So this also means that an “attack” with all aircraft carriers and/or transports is illegal, correct?
This would rule out a tactic of moving units strategically (up to 4 spaces and to the other side of enemy naval units) using retreats. If there is no combat value, you are guaranteed that you won’t accidentally win, like when attacking a single unit.Anyway, it’s illegal to attack with only carriers and/or transports, right?
-
Speaking of no combat values, I remember you answered my question that you can’t “attack” with transports only, because there is no attack value.
So this also means that an “attack” with all aircraft carriers and/or transports is illegal, correct?
This would rule out a tactic of moving units strategically (up to 4 spaces and to the other side of enemy naval units) using retreats. If there is no combat value, you are guaranteed that you won’t accidentally win, like when attacking a single unit.Anyway, it’s illegal to attack with only carriers and/or transports, right?
are you allowed to send units with no attack value (acc, trn) into attacks in order to retreat them with the rest of the fleet? i could see a rationale for the acc since they can take hits, but the transports?
-
Speaking of no combat values, I remember you answered my question that you can’t “attack” with transports only, because there is no attack value.
So this also means that an “attack” with all aircraft carriers and/or transports is illegal, correct?
This would rule out a tactic of moving units strategically (up to 4 spaces and to the other side of enemy naval units) using retreats. If there is no combat value, you are guaranteed that you won’t accidentally win, like when attacking a single unit.Anyway, it’s illegal to attack with only carriers and/or transports, right?
are you allowed to send units with no attack value (acc, trn) into attacks in order to retreat them with the rest of the fleet? i could see a rationale for the acc since they can take hits, but the transports?
not the best wording, but i’m saying if you were sending some units from one zone west of the attack zone and one zone east of the attack zone, for example, in order to retreat together to one zone.
-
Um, yeah, I asked Krieghund about it awhile back when it came up in a game I was in. I was trying to get an ANZAC transport from like Z57 back to Z54 by “attacking” a Japanese destroyer in 55 and then retreating to 54. I would have sent a transport from 54 or 62 as well.
Now I see what you’re meaning….
Yes, you can send transports and carriers into battle with the rest of the fleet in order to retreat them.
You just can’t send them alone. I’m trying to ask him if it’s the same for carriers too.
-
sub destroyer…. vs sub destroyer…
Do attacker and defender subs always roll first? Makes sense to me because subs can only hit naval. However if the defender sub hits the attacker has to figure out what he wants to lose, he would still roll it to attack but he has to figure out what he loses before the rest of the dice gets rolled.
What is the official ruling kreig?
Suggested Topics
