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)
-
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.
-
Does the movement restrictions for America in the Atlantic prevent ships from San Fransisco moving through the Panama Canal when not at war?
-
@Young:
Does the movement restrictions for America in the Atlantic prevent ships from San Fransisco moving through the Panama Canal when not at war?
No. As long as the ships on the Europe boards are adjacent to USA territory or in that one allowed zone in the middle of the Atlantic (forget the number)
Also, ships from EUS could go through the Panama and into the Pacific.
-
Thanks
-
Japan is attacking an ANZAC ship in a sea zone containing American ships. It is Japan’s first attack on the Pacific Allies, can the American ships defend or do they have to wait to declare war? In game… Need answer quick.
-
@Young:
Japan is attacking an ANZAC ship in a sea zone containing American ships. It is Japan’s first attack on the Pacific Allies, can the American ships defend or do they have to wait to declare war? In game… Need answer quick.
If Japan did not declare war on the USA, then the American ships do NOT defend, but must wait until USA declares war.
The ANZAC ship is on its own.
-
Planes still can’t fly over neutrals right? By neutrals i mean true, pro-allied, and pro-axis.
-
they can’t fly over a neutral during combat move, unless and only if they are being used to attack that neutral. they CAN fly over a neutral they have attacked that turn during NONCOM however.
-
If America liberates Celebes, do they get the 3 IPC income increase.
-
Planes still can’t fly over neutrals right? By neutrals i mean true, pro-allied, and pro-axis.
Right.
-
@Young:
If America liberates Celebes, do they get the 3 IPC income increase.
It’s not liberation. Liberation is when you free an Ally’s territory from enemy control and the control reverts back to your ally.
USA can take control of the Celebes (or any other Dutch territory) if they wrest it from an Axis power. They then get all the benefits from controlling the territory, including the increased income, yes.
(Once a Dutch territory is controlled by any playable power, it will never be Dutch again.)
Control can never go directly from Dutch to American. It must be controlled by an Axis power before USA can control it and get income from it (any Dutch territory) -
Ok, the US flew a fighter on to a UK carrier and the US is not at war. If Germany were to attack that carrier does that bring the US into the war or does the plane just not fight?
-
Ok, the US flew a fighter on to a UK carrier and the US is not at war. If Germany were to attack that carrier does that bring the US into the war or does the plane just not fight?
:-)
It was illegal to fly the US fighter on to the UK carrier.On a related note,
At sea, you can ignore the units of powers with which you are not currently at war
On land, you cannot attack a territory that contains any units of power with which you are not at war. You must declare war on that power to attack the territory at all. -
Can all allied air units land on Dutch islands without needing to first land on them, or is it just ANZAC and UK?
-
@Young:
Can all allied air units land on Dutch islands without needing to first land on them, or is it just ANZAC and UK?
Yes, any ally could land on Dutch territories (including in South America) because the Dutch are one of the Allies (at war with Germany)
Note, however, that the USA cannot land on Dutch territories (or move ground units into them) before the USA is in the war, because the USA is still neutral until at war, and is not an ally of the Dutch yet.
-
@Young:
Can all allied air units land on Dutch islands without needing to first land on them, or is it just ANZAC and UK?
Yes, any ally could land on Dutch territories (including in South America) because the Dutch are one of the Allies (at war with Germany)
Note, however, that the USA cannot land on Dutch territories (or move ground units into them) before the USA is in the war, because the USA is still neutral until at war, and is not an ally of the Dutch yet.
So would the following be a correct statement?
ANZAC, France, and the United Kingdom may land air units on Dutch Islands or territories immediatly without controlling them for a full turn. America, and Russia may also do this when they are at war with Germany.
-
@Young:
So would the following be a correct statement?
ANZAC, France, and the United Kingdom may land air units on Dutch Islands or territories immediatly without controlling them for a full turn. America, and Russia may also do this when they are at war with Germany.
Yeah….
But I’m not sure about Russia on the Pacific map… Who would have to be at war with who… although it’s highly unlikely for that to ever be an actual issue, right?
-
@Young:
So would the following be a correct statement?
ANZAC, France, and the United Kingdom may land air units on Dutch Islands or territories immediatly without controlling them for a full turn. America, and Russia may also do this when they are at war with Germany.
Yeah….
But I’m not sure about Russia on the Pacific map…Â Who would have to be at war with who… although it’s highly unlikely for that to ever be an actual issue, right?
Well ANZAC, France, and the UK can land on them because they are at war with Germany (same as Dutch), so Russia and America would have to be at war with Germany to do the same move. I included this because if Russia is at war with Japan but not Germany, they couldn’t land a plane on the Dutch Islands …. right?
-
@Young:
Well ANZAC, France, and the UK can land on them because they are at war with Germany (same as Dutch)
Right
, so Russia and America would have to be at war with Germany to do the same move.
I think so
I included this because if Russia is at war with Japan but not Germany, they couldn’t land a plane on the Dutch Islands …. right?
Right, UNLESS
For Japan to attack a Dutch territory, they must declare war on UK/ANZ according to the rulebook.
So if Japan is at war with UK/ANZ, then I THINK they are always at war with the Dutch, in which case Russia could land on Dutch territories too (because Russia is at war with Japan, as you said)In other words:
Russia can land on DEI if:- Russia and Japan are at war
and - Japan and UK/ANZ are at war
or
2a) Russia and Germany are at war
Russia must be at war with Japan to move out of Russian territories on the Pacific half of the board
Russia must have a common enemy with the Dutch. This could be Germany or Japan. I think Japan is at war with the Dutch if Japan is at war with the UK. - Russia and Japan are at war
Suggested Topics
