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)
-
Can UK/Anzac planes land on Dutch islands without “activating” them the same turn.
YES. Even American planes can land on Dutch territories when America is at war
-
Can you fly over a friendly neutral during the same noncombat phase that you activate it?
(Rule book says you immediately activate the army, put your control marker on it, etc. and it is moved out of neutral status. Since it’s no longer neutral, I think you could fly over it during that noncombat move unless there is a rule somewhere else that says you can’t fly over territories that were neutral at the beginning of your turn)
-
And another fly over question
I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Actually, in the Pacific rulebook it says Japan can attack French territories any time without a DOW. Is this true of global as well?
-
Can you fly over a friendly neutral during the same noncombat phase that you activate it?
No.
(Rule book says you immediately activate the army, put your control marker on it, etc. and it is moved out of neutral status. Since it’s no longer neutral, I think you could fly over it during that noncombat move unless there is a rule somewhere else that says you can’t fly over territories that were neutral at the beginning of your turn)
It doesn’t say “immediately”. It does say that they “can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power that is at war” (italics are mine).
I can only find in the rule book that the Allies who are not at war with Japan can not fly over China without declaring war (is considered an act of war by Japan)
But Japan can fly over UK/French territories before they are at war with UK (or France), correct?
Yes.
Actually, in the Pacific rulebook it says Japan can attack French territories any time without a DOW. Is this true of global as well?
Japan must declare war on France first in Global. This has no effect on its relations with any other power.
-
"They can be moved into (but not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power
that is at war. This moves the territory out of its neutral status, however. The
first friendly power to do so places its national control
marker on the former friendly neutral territory, and its
national production level is adjusted upward by the value
of the territory. With the territory’s loss of neutrality in
this way, its standing army is immediately activated.In my defense, it does say the standing army is immediately activated, and also says the territory has lost neutrality, and was formerly a friendly neutral. Since it is no longer neutral, during the noncombat phase, and since there is no rule prohibiting air units from flying over territories that are not neutral, I think it was a good question.
As you pointed out, the rule says that LAND units can’t move THROUGH the friendly neutral during the noncombat move, but this gives even more reason to believe that air could fly over it because it is specifying that land units can’t move through.But now I know what was intended and what the rule is, so I will write it in my rule book.
Thanks for the quick clarification as always!! -
Curious, are there typos or misprints on the second ed. games?
-
The only one I’m aware of, maverick, is the one Krieghund previously identified when we asked about it -
Page 32, bottom, under transports
You should strike the clause that says “, unless they are conducting an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone that is free of enemy submarines”This was a partial sentence from before that was saying something else - anyway, it should be struck, per Krieghund
Again, I don’t know of any typos or misprints anywhere else - the rule books are very dependable.
-
Awesome!
Now just gotta get setup cards made for my 1st. ed. game.
-
That’s already been done, I think. Look over the sticked threads in the G40 section
A Bob Mickelson did some fancy set up cards you can print out, and there are some threads about Minor Threat’s set up cards….Anyway, thought I might help keep you from having to “re-invent the wheel”
-
Thanks, will do. :-D
-
Okay, I am away from home atm, and that means I don’t have my rulebooks and sorry, but I hate reading from pdfs.
I seem to recall that American warships could not dock near Japanese islands before America and Japan were formerly at war. Was that repealed or am I misremembering that rule? (coming up because of American aggression in my game with Karl7. :P )
-
@Cmdr:
Okay, I am away from home atm, and that means I don’t have my rulebooks and sorry, but I hate reading from pdfs.
I seem to recall that American warships could not dock near Japanese islands before America and Japan were formerly at war. Was that repealed or am I misremembering that rule? (coming up because of American aggression in my game with Karl7. :P )
That is correct, AND American warships can’t end movement by ANY Japanese controlled territory, so it’s not just islands.
Z37 is a significant one. Siam prevents USA from stopping movement in Z37.
Japan can’t get within 2 spaces of Alaska or WUS until at war
-
You should note that Triple A does not enforce the “No USA warships in Z37 until at war” rule, but Z37 is in fact off limits for USA until at war.
-
Yea, I was clear on Japan’s restrictions but I am glad to get confirmation that the US is still barred from docking near Japanese territories. (in this case it’s SZ 17 (Iwo Jima))
-
Just found out that Chinese forces can enter Burma and Kwangtung at any time even if UK is not at war with Japan. This prompted the question: Could Japan target only the Chinese forces in Burma and ingnore any UK troops? Similar to how naval battles can be. My answer was no but an official “no” or “yes” would be great. Thanks a bunch. The fate of the world hangs in the balance!!! :-D
-
Just found out that Chinese forces can enter Burma and Kwangtung at any time even if UK is not at war with Japan. This prompted the question: Could Japan target only the Chinese forces in Burma and ingnore any UK troops? Similar to how naval battles can be. My answer was no but an official “no” or “yes” would be great. Thanks a bunch. The fate of the world hangs in the balance!!! :-D
NO.
On land, you must be at war with all powers that have units there. For example, Russia can’t invade Romania when there is an Italian tank there (along with a German stack, say) without being at war with Italy. Also, you are invading a UK territory, so Japan would always have to declare war on the UK to get at Kwangtung/Burma.
It is ONLY at sea that you can ignore units of powers with which you are at war and attack others. If you need, I can point you to it in the rulebook, otherwise I won’t bother.
-
Just found out that Chinese forces can enter Burma and Kwangtung at any time even if UK is not at war with Japan. This prompted the question: Could Japan target only the Chinese forces in Burma and ingnore any UK troops? Similar to how naval battles can be. My answer was no but an official “no” or “yes” would be great. Thanks a bunch. The fate of the world hangs in the balance!!! :-D
NO.
On land, you must be at war with all powers that have units there. For example, Russia can’t invade Romania when there is an Italian tank there (along with a German stack, say) without being at war with Italy. Also, you are invading a UK territory, so Japan would always have to declare war on the UK to get at Kwangtung/Burma.
It is ONLY at sea that you can ignore units of powers with which you are at war and attack others. If you need, I can point you to it in the rulebook, otherwise I won’t bother.
Great news and thanks for the quick response Gamerman! That answer will suffice. Game on!
-
Where’s the bit of rules in second edition where subs can block an amphibious assault? I’ve tried searching these forums and other places but it’s hard to get quotes for specifically Global rules.
-
Afternoon TheMaster.
If you mean a Sub preventing an amphibious assault by an unescorted Transport, then it is on page 15 of Pacific, under Transports.
That is the only occasion they can do that.
Is that what you meant? -
Yes, that’s it exactly. We scoured Europe 2nd Ed. but not Pacific, lol…
Suggested Topics
