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)
-
My point was merely that sending an AA50 carrier at the big navy has even less chance of winning than a single sub
But once again you have read so much more into it…. :-P
Yes, about 50% less in any given round. I agree, but I was thinking more of the sheer number of times I’ve sent fighters to their certain doom using a carrier as an excuse (even sometimes BUILDING a carrier which later doesn’t have to go there) for allowing them to go. In those cases, I’m not really sending my carriers to their own deaths. lol. Destroyers (submarines as necessary) even cruisers if I have to.
-
Let’s say a minor IC gets upgraded to a major IC. Can you place more than 3 units on the same turn it gets upgraded?
And thanks Boldfresh and Gamerman01 for the answer to my Japan major IC in China question.
-
Let’s say a minor IC gets upgraded to a major IC. Can you place more than 3 units on the same turn it gets upgraded?
No, you must wait until next turn. Kind of like building a new one.
And thanks Boldfresh and Gamerman01 for the answer to my Japan major IC in China question.
Any time - you’re most welcome
-
thanks again
-
Hey there, another question.
Assuming you block a fleet with destroyers.
Can the attacker attack with air flying over the blockade while attacking the blocking destroyers with e.g. ships and the move carriers to the planes once the blockade is cleared to give them a landing space? In case the blockade holds the air would be lost (assuming no other landing space)
However can a blockade being circumvented by that?
Thanks and regards,
Tobias -
@JapanDOWRound1Fan:
Can the attacker attack with air flying over the blockade while attacking the blocking destroyers with e.g. ships and the move carriers to the planes once the blockade is cleared to give them a landing space? In case the blockade holds the air would be lost (assuming no other landing space)
Yes, you certainly can.
And you need only send one unit with attacking power to attack the blockade to make it legal.
Example:
Your opponent has 8 bombers sitting on Libya.
You have 10 USA fighters/tacs on Morocco, which is 3 spaces from Libya
You do not control Tunisia or Tobruk, so your planes must land in Z96.
Your opponent has 3 destroyers in Z96, and a huge fleet in Z92.
Your fleet is in Z91, and you have 5 or more USA carriers (Allied carriers can’t help you since they can’t move on this USA turn, of course) (Also, you must have 10 landing places for your USA planes if you’re sending all 10 out - guest Allied fighters sitting on the carriers would prevent your USA planes from landing on them this turn)You want to attack the 8 bombers, and you legally can.
Assuming no other air in range or boats that can strike Z96, you must- Send at least 1 plane at Z96 to attack the 3 destroyers
- Send at least 1 boat with attack power or 1 plane to attack Z92 (probably send a sub)
Then you can send up to 9 planes from Morocco to attack the 8 bombers on Libya. Any surviving airplanes from Z96 and Libya will be destroyed after your sub loses the battle in Z92, but you have legally attacked Z96 and Libya because had the sub won in Z92, you could have sent 5 carriers to Z96 to pick up any surviving airplanes.
Note that when the blockade is small (like a destroyer) and you succeed in breaking it, you MUST send however many carriers are necessary to pick up any surviving aircraft. That is, during the noncombat phase you must pick up all airplanes if possible. If it’s not possible because you failed to clear the blockade, well…. too bad for those brave pilots. No carrier is coming.
-
Thanks a lot for that very great example, this scenario exceeded my imagination so far while illustrating greatly what this can mean. I guess in games with less experienced opponents such moves will create a lot of astonishment :)
-
If it’s not possible because you failed to clear the blockade, well…. too bad for those brave pilots. No carrier is coming.
This made my smile and a little bid sad ;)
-
Happy to help - I enjoy explaining stuff - I’m a teacher
Happy gaming
-
Refer to the bottom of page 29 and top of page 30 in the 2nd edition Europe manual, under “air units” for the rules we just discussed.
-
You can’t fly over true neutrals, correct?
-
You can’t fly over true neutrals, correct?
Yes and no. Gamer will fill you in when he wakes up :wink:
-
<cough>I’ll have you know I was up at 7:45 this morning…. Was out of town for a few hours
Answer coming right up - I think it’s answered in my neutrals/Mongolia thread post - hang on a sec</cough>
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.new#new
Also for anyone else reading this -
My summary of the confusing Mongolia and Neutrals rules are summarized - see the first post in the thread above. -
Do you need an airbase to be able to send up fighter interceptors on a SBR?
-
@captain:
Do you need an airbase to be able to send up fighter interceptors on a SBR?
NO
And there is no 3 plane limit.
-
Does West India count as a European territory for purposes of the UK’s National Objective in the Global game?
-
Not in Global.
It is swapped with Western Canada from the Pacific map.
This means UK Pacific’s income is now 17 and Europe’s is 28. -
Does West India count as a European territory for purposes of the UK’s National Objective in the Global game?
Wittmann is right -
to clarify,
West India is a Pacific territory for ALL purposes, including the European NO.
And West Canada is likewise a Europe board territory for all purposes, including the European NO. (So Japan has a chance to snipe the NO from the UK when the USA can’t counter-attack it!) -