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)
-
@Eggman:
If he is saying authoritatively that is indeed allowed, then the manuals are incorrect and need revision.
Look at how many pages of FAQ there are, in two different threads. A lot of questions are due to people not even having or not reading their rulebooks, but a slug of them are because a lot of things are pretty unclear, or at least not at all obvious.
What I’m saying is, just because you can prove something using the rulebook doesn’t always make it the actual rule, and yes there are things that should be edited/amended.
However, in this case you were right that “friendly” in the tank rules did not include “friendly neutrals” because “friendly” is elsewhere defined as “controlled by you or a friendly power”. But beware that sometimes you can make a similar case by mixing and matching rules throughout the rulebook and be pretty darn sure, and Krieghund comes along and says that’s not the way it is… In other words, Krieghund trumps rulebook
-
…in other words, Krieghund trumps rulebook
That’s pretty much what I said. If a developer comes out and says the rule is wrong, then the manual needs another revision. In the meantime the manual is all we have.
-
There may be some things in the rulebook that are a bit unclear, but as far as I know there’s nothing in there that’s actually wrong that isn’t already corrected in the FAQ.
-
This seems stupid to me. In my game I have an axis tank in Trans Jordan. I can’t take an empty french Syria and activate Iraq in one move?
Why would this make logical sense? I could blitz two enemy territories but can’t travel through one empty enemy territory and a friendly neutral.
Could I activate Iraq with a different TJ unit in non-com and then move the tank during non-combat into the now axis Iraq with the leftover movement point after blitzing Syria one movement point in combat move?
-
This seems stupid to me. In my game I have an axis tank in Trans Jordan. I can’t take an empty french Syria and activate Iraq in one move?
Why would this make logical sense? I could blitz two enemy territories but can’t travel through one empty enemy territory and a friendly neutral.
I know, right? @Gamerman01:
For the record, it’s STUPID that you can’t blitz into a friendly neutral on the 2nd move of a blitz. It’s a technicality that exists due to adding neutrals to the A&A mechanics of separating combat and non-combat moves. Since tanks can blitz an enemy territory and then move into a friendly all in the combat movement phase, it creates a bit of a paradox.
:-)
@Jeff28:Could I activate Iraq with a different TJ unit in non-com and then move the tank during non-combat into the now axis Iraq with the leftover movement point after blitzing Syria one movement point in combat move?
NO, NO, NO, you can’t. :-)
Because the entire tank’s blitzing move must always be COMPLETED during the combat movement phase. As Eggman astutely pointed out, ONLY PLANES move in the combat movement phase and then also in the non-combat movement phase. -
For the record, it’s STUPID that you can’t blitz into a friendly neutral on the 2nd move of a blitz. It’s a technicality that exists due to adding neutrals to the A&A mechanics of separating combat and non-combat moves. Since tanks can blitz an enemy territory and then move into a friendly all in the combat movement phase, it creates a bit of a paradox.
It has nothing to do with the separation of combat and noncombat movement. The blitzing rule could easily have allowed tanks to end a movement in a friendly neutral and activate it if we had wanted it to.
Moving land units into a friendly neutral to activate it represents the time and diplomatic effort necessary to convince that territory to enter the war. As such, any unit doing so must spend its entire effort on that turn activating the territory, and it may not do anything else. That’s why a tank can’t blitz and activate a friendly neutral on the same turn.
-
Diplomacy with tanks - I see… :wink:
-
For the record.
Pro NEUTRAL’s, are not “friendly” territories, they are neutral territories. I think that’s where all the confusion is coming from.
-
No the confusion comes from the fact that in Boldfresh’s example, the territory is no longer neutral. But Eggman pointed out that it is not friendly either.
-
Also, there is confusion from multiple players about the exact timing of the blitzing of a tank. It is common for people to think that the tank blitzes the first territory in the combat movement phase, and then waits until the non-combat phase to move into a non-hostile territory. People can also overlook that friendly neutrals can never be activated in the combat movement phase.
-
Is there a limit on the number of minor ic’s you can have in a territory?
-
@captain:
Is there a limit on the number of minor ic’s you can have in a territory?
Yes, limit 1 IC per territory.
See “Industrial Complexes” in the rulebookI’m seeing no such prohibition for air bases or naval bases, though…
Krieghund?? Can you build redundant bases to help prevent the enemy from disabling all your bases? :roll:
-
Is that in the rulebook? I’m only asking because I’m playing a game and my opponent has two minor ic’s in Egypt…the Triple A game engine allows that.
-
@captain:
Is that in the rulebook? I’m only asking because I’m playing a game and my opponent has two minor ic’s in Egypt…the Triple A game engine allows that.
You’re too fast - I edited my post. It’s under “Industrial Complexes” and is crystal clear.
“Only one industrial complex can be placed in a territory.”
-
Thanks…I’ll have to square things out with him.
-
@captain:
Thanks…I’ll have to square things out with him.
Yeah. If one of you has a rulebook, it will be easy. If you don’t, give me your e-mail address and I’ll e-mail you the applicable page.
-
Yes, limit 1 IC per territory.
See “Industrial Complexes” in the rulebookI’m seeing no such prohibition for air bases or naval bases, though…Â
Krieghund?? Can you build redundant bases to help prevent the enemy from disabling all your bases? :roll:
Europe Rulebook, page 23:
You can’t have more than one facility of the same type (industrial complex, air base, or naval base) per territory.
-
I see it there! Thanks!
Was only looking in the unit profiles where it says you can’t have multiple IC’s, but remains silent on bases…. -
Gamer + Krieg,
Say you are conducting an amphib assault in a sea zone that only contains an enemy transport. Is it legal to attack the transport with a plane while also conducting shore bombardment with a bb? Can you do both or is it just one or the other?
I feel like this already came up in the AA50 faq but I don’t remember what the answer was lol.
-
Right, yes it did - no problem -
You can not attack a transport and also bombard from that sea zone.
Suggested Topics
