Strafing

So what happens to the neutral Yugoslavia troops? Do they turn over to a Brittan or other allied country? Does the territory itself become allied controlled?

You can choose which troops to put in there, temporarily, until an Allied ground unit (not an AA unit) enters it. Whichever country enters it, in non combat, claims it as its own and places its Infantry units there.
The Allied power does not get the (two)income until it has done this and the surviving units cannot move out of Yugoslavia, until they have been assimilated by an Allied power.

In the circles I’ve played with (for 20ish years, now–jeez I’m getting old!) we’ve always referred to an attack with the intent to withdraw as a bleed and an attack with only aircraft as a strafe or strafing run. Or can-opener, if that is its primary purpose.

I understand this community’s terminology, but I also understand why it can be confusing.

I think the term “strafe attack” is in the original rulebook. Been using that term as others here understand it for over 25 years. It’s never referred to anything else, to my knowledge, and is not specific to air-only attacks.

Never heard of a “bleed”.

“Can opener” never refers to a strafe attack. It refers to capturing a territory so that an ally’s fast units can then blitz through it to attack the next level.

I’m afraid you’ve been using the terms wrong all this time.

@SubmersedElk:

I think the term “strafe attack” is in the original rulebook. Been using that term as others here understand it for over 25 years. It’s never referred to anything else, to my knowledge, and is not specific to air-only attacks.

Never heard of a “bleed”.

“Can opener” never refers to a strafe attack. It refers to capturing a territory so that an ally’s fast units can then blitz through it to attack the next level.

I’m afraid you’ve been using the terms wrong all this time.

No need to be afraid of things that are different. The terms we use make sense to us and we know what they mean. Therefore: not wrong. (Or did you mean badwrongfun? I guess they might be that. I suppose we’ll just have to live with that possibility.)

To clarify, a can-opening move refers to any attack that clears the way for fast units to blitz through. Often it will only use air units (and, thus, also be a strafing run that does not capture territory).

Or did the original rulebook have a different definition for “can-opener”?

I submit that, since the terms we have been using all of these years actually make sense, perhaps you have been using them wrong. And if the original rulebook used the term “strafe attack” to refer to a bleed (and, hey, I’ll concede that it might–it’s been many years since I’ve even played that version), I submit that that usage also was ill-conceived.

I’m 100% certain that I’ve got the terms correct. I’ve played an uncountable number of games of A&A with hundreds of opponents in several different venues and your comments are the first that have used the word “strafe” to mean something other than what I’ve described. It’s never been ambiguous, even when using it to discuss strategy with people I’ve never interacted with before. I’d wager that not one person on this board has ever heard of the term being used differently.

I’ve been playing A&A for as long as it’s been around. Strafing has always meant using only air units to attack ground units. I typically use it to clear a territory that has only 1 or 2 inf. (less risk on the defense roll) so I can clear the way (“Can-opener” -new term for me. I like it.  :wink:) for a blitz move on the next turn or for a fellow team player to invade on their turn. What ever you call it, it can be a very effective tool.

Attacking a ground force for only 1 or 2 rounds of combat with a ground/air force then retreating in order to simply reduce the number of opposing units -that’s always been called a “punch move” or “duke it out for a few rounds”. I’ve never heard that being called strafing.

I may not be quite the A&A veteran you are, but the term “strafing” in the sense of attacking plus retreating in order to weaken the enemy, typically including land units as well as air, has been used by the A&A community for a long time. It’s even in Don Rae’s classic essay which I believe dates from from the late 90’s, and is still available here: http://donsessays.freeservers.com/deadzone.htm

It’s true, however, that this use of the term “strafing” in A&A is incorrect in a military sense, where it indeed refers to aircraft attacking ground units only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafing

So maybe Don Rae is to blame for this faulty terminology?

No, the term predates anything you’ve seen on the Internet. I distinctly remember using that term when I first learned the game almost 30 years ago, which leads me to believe that it came from the original rulebook or other supplementary materials that came with the boxed set. The group of friends I played with weren’t in contact with any larger gaming community and didn’t have the Internet to research with, so the only way we could have known the term is if it was used as part of the instructions from the game. We definitely did not come up with it on our own.

all of the aforementioned are simply combat moves.  to interject official and unofficial jargon into the game as if it were descriptive is pedantic.    I call attacks with the express intention of causing attrition “spoiling” attacks, but I’ve also called similar efforts “bunts”…all are attempts to call out these tactics as special and different than most combat moves, which they are, and assumes they need a unique special name…

which they don’t.

Any term of who’s meaning applies is right. Although you may not be able to properly communicate others of course bulge everyone choosing a different term. For example: attacking a territory withe the intent of retreating from it–some of you call it strafing(I must say that this is the most common A&A term for it)–can rightfully be called a whole arsenal of words which fit that sense. So maybe we are all better of being more specific instead of adding our own ideas in the lot. :wink: just my two cents.

P.S.
One of my opponents thought I meant to go around my enemies when I said can-opener. He was taking the idea of how a can-opener really works. Just another problem caused by our words.