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)
-
@wittmann:
, but only one each per territory, of course.
Yeah, I knew that part (and about the naval bases) but thanks for being thorough guys. :-)
-
Please help me understand this scenario:
Germany takes moscow and achieves 8 VCs. Russians follow by immediately taking Volgograd, but then Italy takes volg back during that same round. Now it’s Germany’s turn again, does axis achieve the win? Is this considered “controlling any 8 european VCs for a complete round of play”?
I’d appreciate a quick, authoritative reply as I’m in the middle of a game and need to know before continuing.
-
No…the axis don’t win. They won’t fulfill the vc requirement until Italy’s turn.
-
Walker is correct - must maintain 8 VC’s throughout a full round of play, in this case Italy to Italy
-
Guys, thank you for the quick reply! So then the TripleA version of global 1940 2nd ed has implemented it wrong then?
-
Yes, TripleA unfortunately implements many things wrong.
-
What else do you know is wrong?
-
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cS3hFwoBP0rWr3208jw1LAtCvHYa9Ji9uU8PwbCMIwM/edit
My comprehensive list is here. Most of these are noted in the TripleA game notes now
I would be happy to answer any questions you have after reading this list
-
This is great. Thank you so much!
-
Hi guys - question re: Scrambles
scenario:
SZ 113 is being attacked by amphibious assault. A FTR and Carrier are brought in from UK, and transports carrying amphibious units are landing in Germany. SZ 113 is already occupied by US carrier as well. Germany scrambles 2 TAC from West Germany to defend SZ 113.
Now, do the US ships also participate in the defence against the scramble, or is it just the UK units?
Thanks!
-
Just the UK units.
-
Well that’s a dumb rule… So I could have an entire armada sitting off the coast but the scramble only attacks those units from one country? Yet another combined units gap in the rules!
-
Axis and Allies rules have always been that only one power attacks at a time.
The naval units are considered attackers. It just feels like the USA boats should be defending because of the scramble, but it’s just the UK attacking those scrambled units - the scrambled aircraft are defending -
If you forget to land your aircraft and a few turns passed…. do those air units crash n burn?
-
cow, it was uk pac and all you did was italy which had nothing to do with india or the entire pacific. when i got back to the pacific with anzac, thats when i realized the tripleA error.
-
I am actually curious what the official answer to this is. Because the rules contradict. Also if we do land planes where do we land them? Adjacent territory or player choice? It also contradicts the other rule that removes unlanded fighters from the game.
-
It always crashed and burned in my games. You are the first person who wanted an official ruling so I am getting it.
-
When a player forgets to land fighters and ends the turn, are the fighters dead? If they are alive who decides where they land?
-
I would think it would be the opponent’s responsibility to point it out, actually. Much like both players are supposed to look for all possible convoy damage on each collect income phase. But if you’re playing with a buddy and you both like to play that way, of course that would be fine (you forgot to land them - they crash).
All aircraft are supposed to be landed safely if possible by the end of non-combat. So not landing them, I would say is a rules violation. Just as with any other rules violation, the opponent should point it out and it can be rectified, and then your question becomes irrelevant.
If someone moves a bomber out and forgets to noncom it, do you think that should crash too? I’m sure the vast majority of players would agree that the non-combat phase is not really over until all air is legally landed (or crashed if a carrier couldn’t possibly pick them up)
-
You are diverting from the question.
It is a yes or no question. These things happen. People forget to roll convoys and only remember until a whole round later. Do you rectify that?
It is pretty simple question. Do fighters crash or do you rectify it somehow? What are the rectify rules? Opponent chooses where it goes or what?
First time hearing of these rectify rules.