AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

It must wait until the following turn.  A transport can’t load again in the same turn after it unloads.

With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

@gamerman01:

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).

That’s one reason.  The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive.  Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.

Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

@Joe:

Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

Your guess is correct.  The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as the assaulting transport(s).

@Krieghund:

@Joe:

Can you bombard a territory from a different seazone than your transports are assaulting from? For example, if the Suez is closed to you, can you transport troops to Trans Jordan from seazone 34, and bombard from seazone 15? My guess is no, however, I’d like to be sure.

Your guess is correct.  The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as the assaulting transport(s).

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “The bombarding ship(s) must be in the same sea zone as at least one assaulting transport(s)”

I don’t have the link but I recall this being discussed by you at length a while back.

Yes, that’s correct.  Any number of battleships and cruisers up to the total number of land units amphibiously assaulting may bombard from sea zones from which at least on land unit landed.  For example, if six infantry landed from sea zone A and one landed from sea zone B, up to seven ships could bombard from sea zones A and/or B, regardless of which sea zone they’re actually in.

Question about the half-priced repairs with improved factory tech:

If I want to repair  3 damage on one IC and 5 damage on another, do I have to pay 4 ipcs for 8 total repairs or do I pay 2 ipcs to repair the three on the first factory and 3 ipcs to repair the 5 on the other (total 2+3=5 ipcs)?  In other words, is rounding done on a per-IC basis or a per-turn basis?

The rules state “you can remove two damage markers at a time for the cost of 1 IPC (half price).”  and doesn’t state that they have to be removed from same factory, so my assumption is that rounding would be on a per-turn basis, but just thought I’d get clarification.

You can split the two damage marker repairs between two ICs.

So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?

@Emperor:

@souL:

Do anti-aircraft guns count as a unit in terms of maximum production in a territory?  For example:  can I produce 2 inf and an aa gun in Karelia?  Thanks.

Yes, AA guns count against production capacity.  Karelia could build 1inf, 1AA, unless you have the Increased Factory Production Technology then you could build a total of 4 units (including AA).

But the rules state that only territories that are that have 3 or higher for maximum production can double their production capacity, so Karelia cannot produce more than 2 units.

@dabapic:

So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?

Yes.

Kreighund,

AA guns
The rules say that an aa gun captured by the enemy that is later liberated by a nation friendly with the original owning country returns to the possession of the original country who owned it.  Is this always the case?

For example, the Japs cature the aa gun in India. Over the course of the next few turns they move it to Caucasus.  The Russians then liberate Caucasus. Is the AA gun now Russian or is it British?

NM

I see you posted the answer on March 30. The aa gun would belong to the Soviets.

@gamerman01:

With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

Many gamers have adopted similar rules. I allow 1 extra unit for a 2 ipc tt w/IC, but no extra units in a 1 ipc tt w/IC.

@Krieghund:

@gamerman01:

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).

That’s one reason.  The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive.  Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.

Kreighund,
You seem to agree that bombing/damage is answered above giving 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement.
I was wondering why the Errata didn’t give a 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement. This would only give these tt a 50% increase in production. Would be the same as Caucasus getting +2 (50% increase in production). I know a line had to be drawn but I just thought there was room for +1 for these tt.  Karelia, Egypt, SA, Aus & Phil would all benefit. As it is it’s hard for the US to establish its self in Pacific, but 3 units in Phil would be great with this development. I do agree with no extra units in 1 ipc tt @ 100%-200% increase in production. I normally wouldn’t place an IC on a 1 ipc tt anyway. I’m sorry if you have already covered this.

If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there?  Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10?  The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms.  As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.

@Krieghund:

If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there?  Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10?  The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms.  As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.

I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing.

@WILD:

@Krieghund:

If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there?  Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10?  The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms.  As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.

I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing.

I’d like to go on record as favoring a revison to this rule.  Include the 2IPC territories, the way it stands most of the strategic locations are left out (Egypt, SAF, Australia, Karellia, FIC\Burma).  I hope you guys will revist this.

@Emperor:

I’d like to go on record as favoring a revison to this rule.  Include the 2IPC territories, the way it stands most of the strategic locations are left out (Egypt, SAF, Australia, Karellia, FIC\Burma).  I hope you guys will revist this.

Nicely said, Emperor Mollari.
I too, would like to see 1 additional build for these small territories.

Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?