Suicide attacks happen in almost any war. Sometimes voluntary and sometimes brave men were send into battle knowing they wouldn’t come back. I see no issue with the rule. It means players simply need to be more careful.
Suicide attacks happen in almost any war. Sometimes voluntary and sometimes brave men were send into battle knowing they wouldn’t come back. I see no issue with the rule. It means players simply need to be more careful.
Short, precise and to the point…well spoken!
Some people don’t like it because kamikaze air attacks are not allowed (flying fighters to attack land territories with no remaining movement points). Basically, this is a legal method to effectively fly kamikaze missions (as Dizzkneeland pointed out, this has been the A&A rule for, like, forever) and I can understand that some players don’t like it.
Some people don’t like it because kamikaze air attacks are not allowed (flying fighters to attack land territories with no remaining movement points). Basically, this is a legal method to effectively fly kamikaze missions (as Dizzkneeland pointed out, this has been the A&A rule for, like, forever) and I can understand that some players don’t like it.
True, but this is a matter of preference. Which has nothing to do with something that needs to be fixed. There are plenty things that could be fixed in AA global 1940, but this isn’t one of them. However if rpg and axis and others wish to play differently in their games and their opponents agree… well who I am to judge that. It doesn´t require a rule change, because it is basically a slight adjustment in the way the game is being played. That is all.
Soulblighter, it doesn’t require a rule change, it deserves a rule change.
It’s not even kamikaze though, since they would just ditch their planes and usually at worst risk spending a couple of years in a POW camp. Not necessarily something I’d be itching to volunteer for, but rather that than being in the front lines at Normandy :)
I would guess that the primary reason for not allowing one-way attacks in the game is for balance. Bombers are already powerful enough, if they could suddenly always go 6 (or 7) spaces without needing a landing spot, you’d end up having to protect transports everywhere and not just close to the front lines.
The rule about just needing a theoretical landing spot swings it back the other way a bit, by making sure that carrier-based fighters can always move at least three spaces away from the carrier, which I think is reasonable with respect to game balance (they should have larger range than the carrier itself). Yeah it’s kind of silly when you have to sacrifice a unit against a huge fleet, but all of the game mechanics are weird if you think about them for long enough :)
Soulblighter, it doesn’t require a rule change, it deserves a rule change.
No it doesn’t. At most it requires testing to see the impact of the rule change. Rules exist for a reason. Just changing them, because you don’t like them is not the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with house rules when both players agree
Name of the game is fun
The rules say that I can play a single player up to 3 times, for a best 2 out of 3 match. If I get 2 wins, does that count as 1 game or 2 games?
It’s not up to 3 times that you can play, it’s best of 3.
So you can only play a 3rd game that counts, if you each won a game first and are split 1-1.
If you go 2-0 or 0-2, you are done.
Until you both get to 10 games played, when it is expanded to best of 5 (first to 3 wins)
I have heard about people rolling dice in the forum. Can someone kindly explain to me how this is achieved? Thank you.
;aaa 2@1 2@2 1@3 1@4;
Where semi-colons are colons instead
This would be a roll for 3 infantry, 1 artillery, a tank and a bomber
You can also roll any number of 6 sided dice with ;dice X; where X is the number of dice you want to roll, but be cautioned that it will always automatically sort the results in numerical order, not in throw order
You can roll non-six sided dice with ;dice Xd20; where X is the number of dice you want to roll and the 20 can be whatever number. In this example, that’s a 20 sided die
Thanks gamerman! Enjoy your weekend!
rules question:
japan has a ss in 19 and US is bringing in a dd + tps to do an amphib on several coastal territories. the dd is brought in just to escort the tps past the ss, but is deciding not to attack the ss. if japan sinks the dd with a kami, will that block the amphib from proceeding?
Yes, because the kamikaze forces combat in the zone, which means the sub cannot be ignored if the Japanese player uses at least 1 kamikaze
Krieghund said that kamikaze’s do not trigger a sea battle in this thread, and that ignoring the sub occurs during combat movement phase while kamikazes happen during the combat phase:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35967.0
I have a follow up question. What if the empty Philippines is guarded by a single sub, and the Allies send a transport guarded by a destroyer, intending to ignore the submarine to conduct an amphibious assault? I would assume Japan can use its kamikazes because of the amphibious assault, but would the destruction of the destroyer prevent the landing (as lone transports can’t amphibious assault against subs), or would the landing go through since the destroyer already ignored the sub?
@wittmann:
Morning Colonel Carter.
The Japanese player can use a Kamikaze and if the DD is eliminated by the Kamikaze, the Sub will prevent the landing.
Sorry, wittmann, but that’s incorrect. Kamikaze strikes, while they do prevent offshore bombardment, do not provoke a sea battle by themselves. As the destroyer was present in the sea zone at the end of combat movement (kamikaze strikes occur in the combat phase), the sub could be ignored, and as there is no sea battle for the sub to be drawn into, it will not prevent the amphibious assault.
ohh, this is interesting…could gamer be wrong for once?!
Eh - should have qualified my answer - I wasn’t 100% sure I was remembering right
Eh - should have qualified my answer - I wasn’t 100% sure I was remembering right
ok, so it does not block amphibious then, right?
Kamikaze strikes don’t bring ignored subs into the battle
