Posts made by bjenglert77

bjenglert77 · Nov 6, 2013, 4:24 PM

The scenario is this:

On Round 3, Japan moved two destroyers into sea zone 25 on its turn.

Then, after that but also on round 3, the U.S. moved a destroyer into SZ 25 as well as a noncombat move since Japan and the U.S. were not yet at war. During the Collect Income phase of this U.S. turn, however, they are finally able to declare war on Japan and they do so.

On Round 4, Japan moves a battleship, 3 cruisers and 2 subs from SZ 6 to SZ 25 to conduct combat on the U.S. destroyer. The two Japanese destroyers from the Round 3 noncombat move are still in SZ 25, but the Japanese player decides they are not going to be part of the combat in the sea zone.

Then, after the Conduct Combat phase is completed, Japan then moves those two destroyers that did not make a combat move and were not involved in the conduct combat phase and they make a noncombat move out of SZ 25 and move to another sea zone.

So, is this allowed?

Can the attacking power, in this case Japan, choose which sea units to will attack in the SZ 25 battle? Particularly since the 2 destroyers that moved in SZ 25 did so during the noncombat move of the previous round and the rules stipulate that if a non-hostile SZ becomes hostile â€“ which usually happens because of new ships being deployed by a power with which youâ€™re at war â€“ the sea units in that sea zone have the option of leaving the sea zone.

Thanks.

bjenglert77 · Sep 28, 2013, 11:10 PM

I’m returning to the forum on this question because the A&A help desk has given me a couple of different answers, depending on who I talk/email with and I’m frustrated.

The scenario is this:

It is the UK turn. The UK has a battleship and a cruiser in SZ 112. In SZ 112, there are also 3 US transports already there that are carrying 3 UK infantry and 3 UK artillery.

The UK player announces an amphibious assault on Denmark. In response, the German player scrambles 3 fighters from W. Germany (there are also 4 German infantry in Denmark).

So, the questions are:

The German fighters obviously can hit the UK battleship and cruiser as part of sea combat. If both ships are destroyed, are the US transports then also sunk and the UK units on board are lost?
Or, can the German fighters not hit the US transports because multi-national forces cannot attack together and consequently the US transports are technically not part of the attack?
And, if the German fighters can not hit the US transports after destroying the UK warships, can the UK units not disembark?

bjenglert77 · Sep 25, 2013, 11:01 PM

This question has to do with multi-national forces.

The scenario is as follows:

The Allies are about to invade Denmark via an amphibious assault. Conducting the assault are UK battleships, cruisers and several UK infantry, artillery and tanks. However, the transports that are carrying the UK land units are American. The UK land units loaded onto the US transports during the previous turn and they are now in position to offload from the sea zone adjacent to Denmark.

In response to the attack, W. Germany has scrambled three fighters.

The questions are, can the UK land units offload from a US transport during the UK amphibious assault? Also, can the German fighters attack the UK fleet AND the US transports?

The question arises because naturally one cannot attack simultaneously with multi-national forces, only defend. In this instance, the UK units are on a US transport, so can they be part of the attack by offloading from the transport after sea battle is resolved even though it belongs to the US?

And since the German fighters are technically defending, can they - by virtue of sinking the UK surface warships first - also sink the US transports? Or are the US transports not considered part of the attack since multi-national attacks aren’t permitted and therefore the German fighters cannot hit them?

bjenglert77 · Aug 28, 2013, 4:18 PM

Hello folks,

I wanted to show my table I built. ï¿½ It is for A&A 1940 2nd Ed. (Global). ï¿½ I was inspired by some of the other tables I’ve seen, but one thing I wanted to incorporate is rigid borders so all boards are locked in. ï¿½ I also thought it was important to have all the ancillary stuff on the sides, as opposed to the front, which is common. ï¿½ The board is already so big that to reach from front to back is difficult enough as it is. ï¿½ I made a “roll box” for the dice, plus you’ll see the battle strips, casualty zone and R&D board are framed in as well. ï¿½ Separate compartments for every power’s units, plus two small ones for chips and IC/bases. ï¿½ I also included underneath a shelf for the two game boxes, rule books, etc. which work like drawers. And last, but not least, in the front, a ledge to lean on and place any adult beverages, as well as a 2-inch high rail to make sure no drinks are spilled on the precious board. ï¿½ I was originally going to build a full-on table with legs, but then I decided I needed to leave the option to put it away easily, so I decided just to build a tabletop and place it on two sawhorses. ï¿½ It works great. ï¿½ It looks great. ï¿½ Hopefully I attached the pictures correctly.

Posts made by bjenglert77

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

crockett36 vs myygames A+6 oob

crockett vs dawgoneit oob

1914 Game 17: Simon as Germany, PP as Austria and nasty Witt as Turkey.

crockett36 vs Jacob16 1942 se

L25 BM4 Adam514 (Axis) vs peirce (Allies+14)

L25 PTV Peirce (X+10) vs max334 (L)

L24 PTV Max334 (Axis +12) vs Nikola

World at War Captain Walker (axis) vs Entek

30

17.7k

40.3k

1.8m