No it’s not correct, neutrals need to be attacked to actually side with the other side. Until they are attacked, no one can fly over them and no one can land on them. Once they are attacked by the Allies for example, everyone can fly over and Axis can land planes in the territory.
You mean that specific neutral (Afghanistan in this case) would need to be attacked before it can be flown over, correct?
@Shin:
You mean that specific neutral (Afghanistan in this case) would need to be attacked before it can be flown over, correct?
Yeah.
But don’t miss this fact -
It is legal to attack Afghanistan and with whatever (USA in this instance) planes you attack Afghanistan with, they may fly off in any direction, so could effectively fly between India and Moscow. But no other planes can fly over it (any plane that did not end the combat movement phase over Afghanistan), including in non-com because it was neutral at the start of the turn Oops - didn’t get this right from memory. 3c is worded perfectly though
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.45
I’m guessing from the wording of dominion’s question that you weren’t attacking Afghanistan with the USA, though
But don’t miss this fact -
It is legal to attack Afghanistan and with whatever (USA in this instance) planes you attack Afghanistan with, they may fly off in any direction, so could effectively fly between India and Moscow. But no other planes can fly over it (any plane that did not end the combat movement phase over Afghanistan), including in non-com because it was neutral at the start of the turn
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.45I’m guessing from the wording of dominion’s question that you weren’t attacking Afghanistan with the USA, though
Doesn’t this ^ go against what you say here: ‘‘c) You CAN fly over a neutral that has been attacked previously, because it is actually no longer a neutral even if it was not conquered. It has joined the opposing side. You can do this in the non-combat move immediately following the attack.’’?
~~Not at all
Afghanistan is neutral at the start of the USA turn. USA cannot fly over Afghanistan on this turn except with planes that are attacking Afghanistan in combat move
Then on UK’s turn immediately following, UK can freely fly over Afghanistan.
OK, attacked previously means attacked on an earlier turn, it doesn’t mean at any moment in time previously to now (it does not mean USA can fly over in noncombat movement because she attacked in an earlier phase of the turn)
It’s simple: You can’t fly over a territory that was neutral at the beginning of your power’s turn. Attacking it directly is not “flying over”~~
Whoops - was going by my memory and was wrong. If I had read my own 3c rule clarification I wouldn’t have wrote this…. And Adam repeated the whole thing and I didn’t read it all :oops:
Not at all
Afghanistan is neutral at the start of the USA turn. USA cannot fly over Afghanistan on this turn except with planes that are attacking Afghanistan in combat moveThen on UK’s turn immediately following, UK can freely fly over Afghanistan.
OK, attacked previously means attacked on an earlier turn, it doesn’t mean at any moment in time previously to now (it does not mean USA can fly over in noncombat movement because she attacked in an earlier phase of the turn)
It’s simple: You can’t fly over a territory that was neutral at the beginning of your power’s turn. Attacking it directly is not “flying over”
Gamer, I’m curious what is the source for the equivalency ur drawing between “previously” and “before the start of your turn.” If u look at the official rules, the game designers used the phrase “since the start of your turn” repeatedly in places where applicable. (e.g., “If your side (but not necessarily your power) controlled a canal or narrow strait at the start of your turn, you may move
sea units through it (you can’t use it in the same turn that you capture it).” p. 9). Presumably, if they intended for that concept to apply here, they would have used the same language. But they didn’t.
Particularly noteworthy, in this regard, is the language that appears on page 11, addressing neutral territories. It states, “When a neutral territory is invaded, it’s no longer considered neutral and immediately becomes part of the alliance opposing the power that attacked it.” (Emphasis added). It does not state that the change in alliance occurs at the start of the next players turn. It states that the change occurs immediately. The consequence would be similar to the change that occurs when one power declares war on another–the DOWed power immediately loses its neutral status, and fly over restrictions it entails.
Thus, it would be permissible, for example, for UK to attack Afghanistan with a single infantry, lose the fight, and the non-combat planes from India to Moscow over the now-hostile territory. Everything in the official rules appears to point to that conclusion.
OK, you’re right. I found Krieghund’s confirmation of this in April of 2013 on the FAQ thread, and also the Mongolia and Neutrals summary I did in April of 2013 unambiguously states the same, in 3c
In over 3 years, this has never come up in any of my games, and never came up in any of my games before that either, not even my games with Boldfresh who loves to do stuff like that. But this could help me in my current playoff game, although still unlikely
It didn’t even click when Adam quoted my whole statement 3c :-P
So after all that, just go by my Mongolia and Neutrals summary. Krieghund scoured over it 3 years ago so it’s all correct.
to all my opponents:
need to take another break, at least 2 weeks, maybe up to a month. i plan to come back, but lately dice have been giving me a very clear sign that i’m playing too much again. whenever this happens, i get frustrated and know it’s time for a break.
to all my opponents:
need to take another break, at least 2 weeks, maybe up to a month. i plan to come back, but lately dice have been giving me a very clear sign that i’m playing too much again. whenever this happens, i get frustrated and know it’s time for a break.
sounds like you should play LL
LL is so BORING
I can’t imagine why anyone would do it, other than to specifically playtest certain strategies.
Yes, and though I haven’t played it, I think you still have very aggravating circumstances with dice and could still be much more unlucky than your opponent (those remainder rolls, and AAA rolls)
It’s not even A&A as we know it…. No, dominion should take a break of a couple weeks to a month (or to infinity) as he said :-)
Hahhaa no this isn’t one of those I’m giving up A&A for good episodes. And anyway it has too powerful a hold on me. Rather, I just need to give it a couple weeks for the dice to forget that I’m their enemy. Usually a small break works just right. No need to stoop to LL levels.
Yes, and though I haven’t played it, I think you still have very aggravating circumstances with dice and could still be much more unlucky than your opponent (those remainder rolls, and AAA rolls)
It’s not even A&A as we know it…. No, dominion should take a break of a couple weeks to a month (or to infinity) as he said :-)
Can I make some comment on the scoring system? I don’t think you should ever lose PPG for a win. If your PPG is above any of your winning game points, they should be excluded and then recalc’ed, until no more are excluded.
I have a number of arguments against that (thank you for your input, I appreciate hearing), but I will be brief since I have answered them all before.
Any game where a win would lower the PPG of the victor is not a competitive game and probably shouldn’t even be played. Now I understand enjoying a good butt-whooping and I understand wanting to learn from great players, but maybe those types of games don’t need to be played in the league anyway (they are totally allowed, and many players are apparently fine with lowering their PPG with a win). If a player wants to play someone who would actually lower their PPG with a win, I would suggest you play in the “Play boardgames section” if you really want to play that game.
Examples:
Me1945 has a 6.5 PPG. I think he could beat any tier 1 player (6 ppg for winning) 95% of the time, at least.
Balladeer has a 5.57 PPG. I think he could beat any tier 2 player (5 ppg) 98% of the time, at least.
Rubioton has a 4.6 PPG. I’m sure he could beat any tier 3 player (4 ppg) 99.5% of the time, if not more.
Show me a game where the winner’s PPG dropped, and I’ll show you a game that was not competitive.
I guess you could just play that game online and not bother with play by forum.
Can I suggest one further comment on the guidelines/rules. Defender casualties should be rolled first before asking for OOL, unless there is some other defender decision needing to be made such as scramble or kamikaze. Defender always has the right to see the number of hits before allocating casualties. This is a bug in Triple-A in some cases, such as subs which opposing destroyers or bombardments.
Defender casualties should be rolled first before asking for OOL…… Defender always has the right to see the number of hits before allocating casualties. This is a bug in Triple-A in some cases, such as subs which opposing destroyers or bombardments.
Confusing, I don’t think you wrote what you meant to write?
Attacker rolls, then defender casualties have to be chosen before the defender dice are rolled
Triple A doesn’t handle certain fleet situations correctly, you’re right. Another problem is Triple A forces a casualty choice after rolling air defense only, when the defender has no destroyers (since air can’t hit subs) but the attacker should be able to see the entire defender’s roll before making a choice.
Some players, including me, will roll these fleet battles on the forum and circumvent Triple A so that the rolls and choices are handled properly according to the rules.
As to bombardments, the defender does have to choose his bombardment casualties before seeing the rest of the attacker’s roll (everything else) according to the rulebook
Since you’re kind of new here, you maybe don’t know about my list of Triple A issues (pretty much all of them are in the Triple A game notes now, though). Sounds like you’ve noticed several already, but you might like to peruse the list. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cS3hFwoBP0rWr3208jw1LAtCvHYa9Ji9uU8PwbCMIwM/edit
@Shin:
LL is so BORING
I can’t imagine why anyone would do it, other than to specifically playtest certain strategies.
Low Luck isn’t really the same game, it’s a different game with similar rules. (Kinda like partner chess and chess) This is just my opinion, but LL does open up different tactics that normally could not be done (because you MUST plan for over kill in critical battles during ADS but in LL you can calculate out the probabilities and rely on them virtually exclusively.)
I, personally, have found LL is more accurate in predicting the results of ADS battles when engaging in naval battles. This is just my, personal experience, and only because as a human, I can make assumptions when calculating my odds of success like “my opponent is going to want to leave carriers undamaged as long as possible because he has no valid landing areas for the fighters” and work out the odds round by round with LL that way.
Likewise, LL is kinda fun when you KNOW that 2 infantry + 1 strategic bomber WILL beat 1 defending infantry AND take the territory 100% of the time. Again, LL, in my opinion, isn’t the same game as ADS…in ADS that infantry may not only prevent you from taking the territory, but also kill both your attacking infantry! This allows you to game the system a little, if you want to ensure a target dies, just ensure you have the required number of hits going in (sink a BB in 1 round, send 4 fighters! etcetera.)
Again, I have had a lot of fun in LL and ADS, I prefer ADS, but LL certainly has its place!
Great post, Jenn, HUGE point about calculating naval battles.
If you just rely on the TripleA calculator for naval battles you will be in for some very unpleasant surprises
I developed a spreadsheet for doing naval battles by low luck (just expected hits each round) that helps me out
And yes, I would be willing to share it for a small fee :wink: :-D :roll:
