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)
-
The rules say cleanup.
I asked this question in the old faq. You just clean it up, the pieces go back in the box. Most players play casually and would just land them in the nearest spot. League is only semi casual. Depends on who you get.
I had to lose a few fighters in a league game before. It has not been asked on this faq so I am asking it again for clarification.
-
Honestly I would say that his turn should not have ended, so let him land the planes where he wants. If it ends up making a huge difference to Italy, then re-do Italy’s turn.
I can’t imagine playing with someone who made me lose the planes in that situation. I would quit the game right then. i don’t care if it’s a league game, someone who does that is not someone I would ever want to play with.In our games, when this happens, we let the player land them wherever they want, even if it’s a whole round later. It’s really not a big deal.
Even with convoy raiding, if we forget it until the next round, just roll it then. It shouldn’t make a difference if they lose the money at the end of their last turn or the beginning of their next turn. -
I agree with Pancake. You know, you guys could also read your combat log occasionally. I spotted this immediately in the UK2 log:
Non Combat Move - British
2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber could not land in Burma and were removed -
My opponent is extremely strict. It is not a casual league game. Need ruling.
-
Ask Jenn
You two shouldn’t even be playing each other.
You just saw two players plus myself say that it is ridiculous to demand these planes are lost. I get that both of you are trying to catch each other on technicalities to prove a point etc. You guys need to work it out or get Jennifer. I’m not going to be the puny little referee in this out of control Pro Wrestling match :lol:
-
A couple of fighters crashing is so dramatic. Jeez.
When I forget, my planes crash. When someone else forgets, they are forgiven. I just want an official ruling on what to do for fighters that have not landed.
If I am going to be playing a strict by the rules game, it is what it is. Why be so dramatic?
Technically one can only blame thyself for forgetting important units.
-
I agree, it’s an unusual issue to have. TripleA warns you when there are planes that haven’t landed. If you’re not going to let it go, I think you should ask Jennifer. Was she the one who ruled against you with this issue last time?
-
Jen or Garg. One or the other.
It makes sense because it keeps people from intentionally not landing fighters to see what opponents do then going… “oh i forgot to land these… I will put them here.”
-
@Cow:
My opponent is extremely strict. It is not a casual league game. Need ruling.
i’m not extremely strict, that’s ridiculous. i said i want you to stop making all these noncom edits - something you have been strict on in the past.
-
@Cow:
Jen or Garg. One or the other.
It makes sense because it keeps people from intentionally not landing fighters to see what opponents do then going… “oh i forgot to land these… I will put them here.”
and that’s fine, but you know i was not trying to take advantage in this case i just accidentally clicked through.
-
@Cow:
Jen or Garg. One or the other.
It makes sense because it keeps people from intentionally not landing fighters to see what opponents do then going… “oh i forgot to land these… I will put them here.”
that would be Jenn then since Garg has nothing to do with the league, let alone being a moderator. sure am happy to hear his opinion on the matter though.
-
Dutch New Guinea is friendly neutral and hasn’t been occupied by either Aussie or Japan. If USA moves into the territory in ncm, do they take ownership? Just trying to determine if USA can help Aussie get its NO here.
-
Absolutely Zhukov, as long as both the US and Anzac are at war with Japan.
-
i was thinking usa couldn’t claim dutch territories? they can land there but not change ownership was my understanding - at least that’s how tripleA treats suriname when usa walks in from brazil - this may be a tripleA error of course there are MANY.
-
Right, TripleA is not letting me do it. If it’s a bug, it should go high up on the bug list.
Seems like it ought to allow USA to claim it unless there is special language in the rulebook indicating that only the Dutch can claim it.
-
Zhukov, apologies, I believe I am wrong. Thanks for pointing out that Dutch territories are not Friendly Neutrals, Boldfresh.
America can only control them after they have been captured by Japan.So, no the US cannot capture them for Anzac’s NO.
Again, I am sorry. -
The Dutch have an arrangement with UK/ANZ only
ONLY UK/ANZ can take control of Dutch territories in non-combat movement. The rest of the Allies can only control originally Dutch territories if an Axis power took control at some point first.
-
Can you fly over strict neutrals during the CM phase. Ex: bombers from WG attack the cruiser in sz91. If this has already been answered I would appreciate a link. Thank you
-
You can’t fly over any neutrals that have never been attacked before.
Once a neutral is attacked by either side (or claimed, of course, in which case it is no longer neutral) then any powers at war may fly over, and friendly aircraft can land in the neutral. -
So this guy is trying to unload 2 units on Korea.
I got a sub on sz 6 and I want to defend against his 1 sub 1 transport unloading 2 guys.
Can I do it? I told him I can. He do not want to believe me.
Suggested Topics
