Posts made by Cernel

@Krieghund said in Shouldn't Allies always win?:

While the Allies do have more income, the Axis starts with more forces on the board. The Axis must quickly leverage this force advantage into an income advantage by gaining territory in order to win.

Actually, I believe this is not true. Allies start with more production, more saved certificates (same as the production, as usual), more units value and more units number.

However, the Allies advantage in production and certificates is much more pronunced than the Allies advantage in units value and number. So, I’d agree that the Allies have a comparate advantage in production and the Axis a comparate advantage in starting forces (even though the Axis has an absolute disadvantage in both).

@Du-Bist-Toten I believe this game (the first edition of Spring 1942) is one of the most balanced Axis & Allies games. Axis has a very small advantage in term of winning probability. One of the few Axis & Allies games you can actually play at good levels without bidding.

In Revised OOB, can Antiaircraft Guns be taken as casualties of naval bombardment?

I think this is not supposed to happen, but I also believe that, under a literal reading of the rulebook, it should be possible since:

• Antiaircraft Guns are added to the battle board during step 1 (in the column number 1).
• Bombardment fires against enemy land units in the attacked territory, during step 2.
• Antiaircraft Guns are land units.
• Antiaircraft Guns are removed from the battle board (and returned to the game board) during step 3.

This would also imply that, when attacking a territory defended by nothing but one or more antiaircraft guns, the attacker may bombard these guns (if it prefers not to capture them) (the guns would be hit for sure also in case the territory is occupied only by defending air units and antiaircraft guns).

The fact that I would be able (or obliged, if no other targets) to bombard antiaircraft guns is, in my opinion, reinforced by this excerpt:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Revised_5_FAQ.pdf

If it was there in the space when combat took
place, then it is considered to have participated in that fight whether or not there were planes to shoot
at.

That confirms the antiaircraft units are there as defending (land) units, in the battle, in any case.

As a side note, the rulebook has a related inconsistency in that in the example on page 19 antiaircraft guns are remove from battle immediately after firing, during step 2, while the rules on page 16 state that the antiaircraft gun is removed from battle only on step 3. One could use this example to argue that first you make the AA Fire and, then, you make the Bombardment, while the antiaircraft guns are removed immediately after the AA Fire and before the Bombardment. However, I don’t think this can be the case, as I’m under the understanding that everything happening during the Opening Fire is supposed to happen at the same time, albeit resolved sequentially. Can we confirm that the example at page 19 is wrong, and the part that tells to return the antiaircraft gun should be on step 3, instead of step 2? A minor argument, on this matter, may be that this is a case covered under the page 18 rule that “you may also skip using the battle board for combat steps that occur one after the other without activity”, in that you would remove the antiaircraft gun, during step 2, as soon as it has nothing left to do for the rest of the battle.

I believe the only relevant place where antiaircraft guns invulnerability is declared is on page 25:

Antiaircraft guns are never destroyed, except when
a transport carrying one is sunk.

Which one may argue that indirectly implies that they can never be taken as casualties (it would be clearer if it would say that they can never be taken as casualties nor removed from play but as cargo). However, one could say that this is just saying that they cannot be destroyed (similarly to how destroyers save from removal submarines casualties, during step 3), not that they cannot be taken as casualties, thus you could take an antiaircraft gun as casualty, during step 2, and avoid removing it as casualty during step 3 (by returning it to the game board, instead).

To be clear, again, I’ve no doubt that the intention is that antiaircraft guns cannot be taken as casualties by bombardment, but I’m just pointing out that, reading what the rules say, to some extent, it looks like they can, and I’m curious if I’m ovelooking something.

I think everything I said applies to LHTR too (beside the fact that air units are eligible bombardment casualties).

@freh said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Also, in the 2nd edition rules, under the section “how they fight”, for amphibious assaults, it says:

“If you are launching such an attack and the sea zone adjacent to the target area is enemy-occupied, then your naval force including your cargo-laden transports must engage in in combat before the amphibious assault can occur”.

To me this suggests that the transports had to have been loaded prior to the battle, not after, and such a move has to be done in a friendly sea zone, not an enemy-occupied one.

The matter at hand is not if a transport can make combat, then bridge (that is make combat, then load, then offload). This has been officially clarified as not allowed (and, in my opinion, it has always been fairly clear it is impossible).

The question is if a transport that started its turn into or just moved into a hostile sea zone can load, then make combat, then offload.

In my opinion, missing a statement that units cannot load in hostile sea zones, this should be allowed for units that have done nothing (units starting in hostile sea zones (which can happen with optional rules or under the 3rd Edition rules)). Therefore, the matter left would be whether or not a sea unit that is blocked by enemy units from moving any more is also blocked from loading.

We are waiting for Larry… I find it quite amazing that, after a quarter of a century, and how many games played, in which this would have been relevant, this matter is yet to be sorted out.

@jchamlin No. “Europe” and “Pacific” are not “Europe 1940” and “Pacific 1940”.

I guess I should have clarified I wasn’t talking about the 1940 ones. I understand only now this was the disconnect.

Links:
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-Europe-1999.pdf
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-Pacific.pdf

@jchamlin said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Page 22 of the A&A Pacific 1940 Second Edition Rulebook says:

Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved, offloaded, or were involved in combat during the Combat Move or Conduct Combat phase.

So, basically, the ruling challenge is that this sentence means that transports cannot do any of those things if they were involved in combat.

Can you help point me to the relevant parts of the A&A Pacific 1940 or A&A Europe 1940 Second Edition rulebooks which would clarify that you can load or unload, but not both, and not move, if the transport was involved in combat that turn?

Thanks in advance!

-J.C.

You cannot. From Revised LHTR onwards, rules like those you quoted disallow transports that have been in combat from loading and from offloading. I was merely pointing out that is not the case “since classic”, as you said, but rather since Revised LHTR. This is what I said:

@Cernel said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Assuming you find yourself in this situation in any version of A&A since classic with a fleet sitting in a hostile sea zone (due to the defender building a destroyer to block), with empty transports, and units available to be picked up from that sea zone for an amphibious assault but cannot: it will take you THREE TURNS before you can conduct an amphibious assault (assuming you don’t get allied help to destroy the blocker). Turn 1: transports flee empty before combat, some portion of the fleet remains to kill the destroyer built to block (as stated earlier in this thread, they must flee, if they stay they are forced to are participate in the sea zone combat and this cannot be loaded during non-combat).
Turn 2: kill the second destroyer built to block, non-combat the transports back in and load them
Turn 3: conduct the amphibious assault

@jchamlin I believe you are correct here for every strategic games since Revised LHTR (included). However, I believe that Europe, Pacific and Revised OOB (non-LHTR) reduce this to 2 turns only, as, on turn 1, you can just leave the empty transports in the sea zone, have them taking part in the sea battle and, then, load units onto them (so they will start turn 2 in the same sea zone, but with the units already on board).

@jchamlin We shouldn’t go too much off topic, so I’ll try to answer concisely here, and just because you asked for it. Hopefully @Krieghund will take care to correct me if I’m giving wrong information.

@jchamlin said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

@jchamlin I believe you are correct here for every strategic games since Revised LHTR (included). However, I believe that Europe, Pacific and Revised OOB (non-LHTR) reduce this to 2 turns only, as, on turn 1, you can just leave the empty transports in the sea zone, have them taking part in the sea battle and, then, load units onto them (so they will start turn 2 in the same sea zone, but with the units already on board).

Sorry for being new, but I’m not sure about all the acronyms for the various versions of the rules. I think OOB is Out of the Box (i.e. rules as written),

Literally, yes, but I believe that by OOB it is meant also to comprise every official information without the box, that are part of the same rules set as the one included in the game, especially “errata”, giving them priority over every information within the box (so it’s not like OOB means you just look at what’s in the box and disregard everything else). Moreover, it also comprises whatever still valid information given by the original author or any person appointed directly or indirectly by him for giving official answers. Anyways, I believe here this matter is irrelevant, as the original rulebook is clear enough, on the rules at hand.

and LHTR is Larry Harris Tournament Rules.

Of course, and, obviously, the latest version of it if not differently specified.

So, you’re saying there’s a Revised OOB ruleset that allows transports to participate in both the combat and non-combat phases, by first “participating” in the sea battle (not that they do much) and then still participating in non-combat by loading units?

Differently from bridging, loading (only) doesn’t count as a movement for the transport. So, technically, the transport is not moving during Non-Combat, if it only loads. Rather than allowing this, the rules set is not disallowing it (while LHTR and later do). However, the rules set also specifically states that a transport that Combat moved or took part in battle can load, but cannot bridge, on the subsequent Non-Combat move phase, as long as it didn’t offload, during the turn. The only two exceptions to this are if the transport offloaded or retreated.

Can the transports also move during non-combat after loading,

No (that’s the reason why it can load but it cannot bridge, since bridging counts as moving).

and also unload, or can they just be loaded?

It can load or offload, but not both (because it cannot bridge), if it hasn’t offloaded anything. If it offloaded one or more units (during Combat Move or Conduct Combat), it cannot load and it is restricted offloading into the same territory as before (the offloading can only happen if you started your turn with 2 units already on board and offloaded only 1 during Combat Move or Conduct Combat).

Can you point me to where this revised rule is please (link to a forum thread, a rulebook page, an official errata/FAQ, etc)? I can’t seem to find it. The only thing I’ve found is the rule that says all ships present in the sea zone must participate in the battle.

As I said, the fact that you can load, after having taken part in Conduct Combat without retreating from a battle and without offloading, is primarily the consequence of the fact that there are no rules that say you cannot (loading without offloading is not a movement for the transport).
This is the Revised OOB rules set:
https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-Revised.pdf

On page 21 you can find the (unnecessary) clarification I mentioned:

Transports that have been in combat may either load or offload (not both) during this phase, but not if they have retreated from combat this turn.

As I said, even if the text quoted above would be absent from the rulebook I linked, you could still do that, since the rules set is not forbidding you to do it (and it is already forbidding you to do “both”, as that would be bridging, that counts as moving, which is not possible after having been in combat).

@Krieghund said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

@Cernel said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Just to be absolutely sure, are you actually saying that, according to a literal interpretation of the rules, the following sequence of actions is legal:

During the British turn, the sea zone next to the United Kingdom being occupied by 1 German battleship at start turn, move 1 empty British transport into the sea zone next to the United Kingdom territory, load 1 or 2 units from the United Kingdom territory onto the transport, declare the intention to offload all the loaded units into Western Europe, conduct combat with 1 German battleship in the sea zone, clear the sea zone with the transport surviving, offload all the loaded units into Western Europe.

If you are saying that the above is legal (as @jchamlin appears to be sure that it is), I think here we have once again a case of a conflict between the literal interpretation of the rules and the interpretation of the intention behind the rules.

This is something that happens, when interpreting laws (the rules of a game are laws too, of course). Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach

As much as I’m surprised that you are conceding to it, I tend to agree with you that, according to a literal interpretation of the rules, the move above should be allowed (because the rules fail to disallow it).

However, I’m pretty sure that the intention behind the rules is not to allow that sequence of actions (just the way the rules are explained is not literally covering the case).

The main reason why I believe so is given by the fact that, by the rules, enemy ships have the ability to impede you offloading into a territory, from the sea zone they are inside. The dynamic by which this happens can only be pictured as these ships interposing themselves between your transports and the coastline where you intend to offload. Therefore, it would make no sense that, instead, they are unable to interpose themselves between your transports and the coastline where you intend to load. If you need to destroy all enemy ships before offloading to a coastline, it makes the only sense that you need to destroy all enemy ships before loading from a coastline, at least in the case in which the transports are moving into the sea zone (thus being blocked by the enemy ships, from moving any further).

Well, it is a slightly different situation. When loading, you are in friendly waters within the sea zone. While offloading for an amphibious assault, you are in enemy waters within the sea zone. It could be argued that enemy ships guard only their own coastline, and not yours. I realize this is splitting hairs, but it could be used as thematic justification for the difference.

Right. But I also believe that the ability of enemy ships of blocking you from moving any further also implies that they are blocking you from moving within the sea zone. Since a ship that starts its turn inside a hostile sea zone is not blocked from moving out of it, while a ship that entered the same sea zone is blocked from moving out of it, I believe that only ships that started their turn inside the hostile sea zone are in “friendly waters”. That is why I would rule that ships that are already inside the sea zone and have not yet moved can load (which would apply only if using the optional rule for placing in hostile sea zones or as a consequence of the 3rd Edition only submerge rule), while ships that entered the sea zone on the same phase (and are blocked by the enemy units) cannot load. However, a question would be whether or not, in either the first or the second case, they can load during the subsequent Non-Combat Move phase, if they didn’t offload and the sea zone has been cleared (I know that they can in Revised OOB but not in any games since Revised LHTR).

@Krieghund said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

Doing that is legal, based on the fact that you can load in a hostile sea zone. What you said before (move in, attack, load, offload) is not. It’s the order which you do it that’s important.

This matters because you must commit the land units to the assault before the sea battle is fought.

Just to be absolutely sure, are you actually saying that, according to a literal interpretation of the rules, the following sequence of actions is legal:

During the British turn, the sea zone next to the United Kingdom being occupied by 1 German battleship at start turn, move 1 empty British transport into the sea zone next to the United Kingdom territory, load 1 or 2 units from the United Kingdom territory onto the transport, declare the intention to offload all the loaded units into Western Europe, conduct combat with 1 German battleship in the sea zone, clear the sea zone with the transport surviving, offload all the loaded units into Western Europe.

If you are saying that the above is legal (as @jchamlin appears to be sure that it is), I think here we have once again a case of a conflict between the literal interpretation of the rules and the interpretation of the intention behind the rules.

This is something that happens, when interpreting laws (the rules of a game are laws too, of course). Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach

As much as I’m surprised that you are conceding to it, I tend to agree with you that, according to a literal interpretation of the rules, the move above should be allowed (because the rules fail to disallow it).

However, I’m pretty sure that the intention behind the rules is not to allow that sequence of actions (just the way the rules are explained is not literally covering the case).

The main reason why I believe so is given by the fact that, by the rules, enemy ships have the ability to impede you offloading into a territory, from the sea zone they are inside. The dynamic by which this happens can only be pictured as these ships interposing themselves between your transports and the coastline where you intend to offload. Therefore, it would make no sense that, instead, they are unable to interpose themselves between your transports and the coastline where you intend to load. If you need to destroy all enemy ships before offloading to a coastline, it makes the only sense that you need to destroy all enemy ships before loading from a coastline, at least in the case in which the transports are moving into the sea zone (thus being blocked by the enemy ships, from moving any further).

Obviously, we all realize that it is next to impossible that whoever holds the copyright over the original 4 classic editions (comprising their rulebooks) is going to publish official errata or addenda, at this point.

So, what are we going to do? Can Larry be summoned for a quasi-official clarification of the rules (that I’m pretty sure will say the move is forbidden)? Can he publish an actual official integration for the rulebook on his own?

Assuming you find yourself in this situation in any version of A&A since classic with a fleet sitting in a hostile sea zone (due to the defender building a destroyer to block), with empty transports, and units available to be picked up from that sea zone for an amphibious assault but cannot: it will take you THREE TURNS before you can conduct an amphibious assault (assuming you don’t get allied help to destroy the blocker). Turn 1: transports flee empty before combat, some portion of the fleet remains to kill the destroyer built to block (as stated earlier in this thread, they must flee, if they stay they are forced to are participate in the sea zone combat and this cannot be loaded during non-combat).
Turn 2: kill the second destroyer built to block, non-combat the transports back in and load them
Turn 3: conduct the amphibious assault

@jchamlin I believe you are correct here for every strategic games since Revised LHTR (included). However, I believe that Europe, Pacific and Revised OOB (non-LHTR) reduce this to 2 turns only, as, on turn 1, you can just leave the empty transports in the sea zone, have them taking part in the sea battle and, then, load units onto them (so they will start turn 2 in the same sea zone, but with the units already on board).

Finally, @Krieghund, even though it doesn’t really matter, as “bridging” is merely flavour text, can we clarify it? @jchamlin clearly believes that moving into a sea zone and, then, loading and offloading units without moving any further is bridging. My understanding, instead, is that no bridging is happening during such sequence of actions, as bridging is, instead, when you load and offload units during the same turn while the transports doesn’t move at all, during the phase in which it is bridging (thus it is also not moving during the whole turn). So, is bridging whatever situation in which you load and offload without moving between loading an offloading (as @jchamlin believes) or is bridging only the situation in which you load and offload without moving the transport at all, during the whole phase (as I believe)?

@Krieghund said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

I’ve reviewed the Classic rules, and it seems you are correct. There is no restriction there against loading in a hostile sea zone. However, such a restriction was not necessary under the standard rules, as this situation can only occur when using the optional rule that allows placing new units in a hostile sea zone and that sea zone contains enemy transports.

How about submerging submarines in 3rd Edition?

As every game since then (1999’s A&A Europe onward) does not allow loading in a hostile sea zone, one can only assume that this was a loophole created by an optional rule which was never caught, and was not intended. (I can check with Larry if you want verification of that, but I’m certain it was not intended.)

In any case, you are correct that this technically was allowed in Classic, even if only as a loophole. I must amend my statement to say that it hasn’t been allowed in any A&A game since then.

If the Classic rules are not telling you that you cannot bridge into battle through a hostile sea zone (that just means load one or more units to offload them all into combat using a transport that is not moving), how are they telling you that you cannot move the transport into the hostile sea zone, then load one or more units to offload them all into combat? I’m sure this is not possible, but just wondering.

@jchamlin Bridging merely means that the transport counts as having moved.

@Krieghund said in A&A Global 1940: Amphibious Assaults, Bridging, and Sea Zones that Start the Turn with Hostile Ships:

As to Larry Harris’ intent, yes, this is the way he intended it to work. I understand your frustration at having an amphibious assault blocked this way, but when you think about it, it is really no different than a single unit blocking the movement of a large army or fleet and delaying its progress. It is simply something that must be worked around.

Hasn’t the fact that this incentives keeping units loaded across rounds been an issue in playtesting, since it is particularly difficult to track what is cargo of what if you don’t offload it on the same turn? I would say adding a rule that you can load in hostile sea zones as long as the transport ship has not moved yet would rather simplify gameplay.

@jchamlin You just keep these units on the transports, instead of offloading them in Sicily and Sardinia, if they are not needed to capture the territories, for example.

I made this post to advise changing the “SEMMOVENTE 42” name (in the image) to “SEMOVENTE DA 75/18” or “SEMOVENTE M42 DA 75/18” but now I see it is listed as “Semovente M42 da75/18” (so I edited the post).

Three examples come to my mind (if Kamikaze is allowed in Classic 3rd Editions):

• During Non Combat Move, if a fighter can land only if a carrier moves to any one of some zones, am I obliged to move the carrier to one of the zones (so to avoid the fighter to crash)?
• During Non Combat Move, can I choose not to move a surviving fighter that took part in a land battle, on the current turn, no matter if the fighter has enough mobility left to move to a zone where it can land (I realize this is idiotic)?
• During Non Combat Move, can I move a fighter (that maybe never moved yet) into a newly conquered/liberated or enemy territory just to make it crash (I realize this is idiotic)?

@ShadowHAwk said in Submarines v. anything that isn't a destroyer:

The effect is exactly the same for destroyers but the wording is just more complex.

Nope. There are at least three substantial differences:

• In Revised, submarines against destroyers still fire before any other units on their same side, so casualties will be chosen before knowing the results of the fire of the other units (this might influence your choices) (this is not actually a difference for a side that has submarines only) (of course, if the defender has both sea and air units, you will have to roll separately for submarines in Global too).

• In Revised, submarines always fire before non-submarines, so casualties will be chosen before knowing the results of the fire of the other units (while in Global defending submarines will fire after all attacking units if the attacking units comprise at least one destroyer).

• In Revised, if the casualties of submarines are other submarines, such casualties will always fire, on the same round of combat, while in Global they will fire only if one or more destroyers a present on their side or no destroyers are present on the opposite side or both.

Here it is an example of the second case:

You have 1 submarine and 1 destroyer attacking 1 submarine alone. The attacking submarine hits.

In Revised, the defending submarine fires back.

In Global, the defending submarine doesn’t fire back.

@Panther Please check I’m being correct, as I’m not sure.

@Krieghund said in Industrial Complexes and AAs Limit?:

You can use any object that you like (coin, button, slip of paper, etc.), as long as all players agree on what it should be.

Well, but they must eventually agree on something, or at least the game cannot proceed until then. Otherwise anyone that would have advantage not to would not agree (friendliness aside), thus the game would be substantially limited to the number of official pieces and chips available.

@regularkid Wow, 5 pages after a week from the original post is impressive.

I think it can be said that Outer Mongolia was for the Soviets almost what Inner Manchuria (Manchukuo) was for the Japanese.

If the game doesn’t want to add scarcely worthwhile complexity, the most reasonable way to represent all of what we today know as Mongolia is simply as Russians but originally owned by none (or Chinese). However, the importance of the Mongolian military itself was negligible.

By the way, when (in violation of the non-aggression treaty) the USSR declared war on Japan, “Mongolia” was a base of operation for the invaders. So, the Russians didn’t need to have someone else declaring war on them, to turn their Mongolians into Russians. That already practically happened before the start of WW2, regarding the Russians ability to move freely within Mongolia.

@Krieghund said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

However, what I believe you mean is:

“This is correct (at least) for the Anniversary edition and the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”
BUT
“This has been clarified/added to the FAQ-sheets only for the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”

No, he meant what he said. The rules for AA50 are different than what came later. In AA50, you are forced to mobilize as many units as possible, but over-purchasing is not expressly prohibited, and units that can’t be mobilized remain in the mobilization zone for later turns. From the FAQ:

Q. On page 22 it says that any new units that you don’t place in the Mobilize Units phase aren’t lost, but can be placed on a future turn. Does this mean that I don’t have to mobilize my units if I don’t want to?
A. You must mobilize all of your purchased units that you are able to. You may only hold back units that you can’t mobilize because you don’t have sufficient production capacity. These units remain in the mobilization zone until they are mobilized by you.

Potential abuse of this rule was what lead to its revision in later games.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. So it is legal and officially permitted to abuse the rule (nothing can stop you from deliberately overpurchasing).

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

In any case, I suppose I’m still waiting to satisfy my curiosity about anything before Anniversary…

In Classic, it is impossible to purchase more units than you can mobilize, as capital ICs have unlimited capacity, and you cannot purchase or mobilize units if you don’t control your capital. Also, the rules state on page 21 that all purchased units must be mobilized. The same is true in the original Europe and Pacific games.

Are you sure that it is impossible to purchase more units than you can mobilize, in Classic? As I said, this is not really something that it is going practically to happen, but, at least in the 2nd Edition of Classic, I’m thinking about these cases:

• Purchasing sea units that you have no chance to place because you cannot possibly clear the required sea zones.
• Purchasing more sea units than the total placement capacity adjacent to sea zones (to the extreme of purchasing sea units when you only have IC in land zones adjacent to no sea zones).
• Purchasing AA that you have no chance to place because of the presence of other AA you cannot possibly move out (for example, Japan has only its capital and no sea units remaining, and purchase an AA while having already one).
• Purchasing more IC than the number of territories without an IC you own (to the extreme of purchasing an IC when you only own your capital).

Also I don’t remember if removing a factory in the capital with Scorched Earth then liberating the capital may cause not to have the unlimited placement, therefore creating another case.

In Revised, the rules state on page 22 that all purchased units must be mobilized. Over-purchasing is covered in the FAQ:

Q. What happens if I forget the production limit and build, say ten infantry when my only industrial complex is in a territory with a value of eight? Are the two leftover infantry destroyed?
A. Technically (which means, in a tournament), yes. In a friendly game, tell the player he’s making a mistake and let him take it back or refund him the money. You don’t want to win that way.

Well, to me this reads as one player making an involuntary overpurchase, so I’m not seeing it clearly covering the matter in which I would deliberately decide to purchase more than I can possibly place (to, then, decide what to lose and what to place) (again, I realize this is practically not going to happen). I was actually leaning to read this as implying that intentional overpurchases were illegal in Revised too, since the clarification seems to assume that overpurchasing can only happen as a mistake.

However, since you clarified that in Anniversary I can deliberately overpurchase, I’m clear now that is the same in Revised too.

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:
Also, I want to point out that my second case (undermobilizing) is not necessarily only the inevitable consequence of the first (overpurchasing), but also refers to not mobilizing something you can still mobilize, like in the case of (purposely) not mobilizing one or more units while you can mobilize all units that are in the mobilization zone.

This is not allowed in any version.

To summarize, this is what I now understand the rules are:

OVERPURCHASE
In all games from Classic 1st Edition to Anniversary, you can freely overpurchase (either by mistake or intentionally).
In all games from Spring 1942 1st Edition, you can overpurchase only as long as nobody calls you out during the phase in which you do it (and, then, you need to affirm that you did it unintentionally).

UNDERMOBILIZE
In all games from Classic to the latest ones (all the same) you are forced to mobilize the highest possible number of units, once in the Place/Mobilize Units phase.

Then, I still have some items I’m not sure about. This is my understanding:

1- In Classic, I can purchase a sea unit that I can possibly place only if I clear a sea zone for it, yet, during the Combat Move phase, I don’t have to attempt to do it.
2- In Classic, I can purchase an AA that I can possibly place only if I move out an existent AA, yet, during the Non-Combat Move phase, I don’t have to move any AA (being forced to mobilize as many units as possible applies only to the Place Units phase, never forcing me to make moves so to mobilize as many units as possible).
3- In Revised and following, if, for example, I have only two IC, one in a value 8 and another one in a value 1 territory, while only the value 1 territory is adjacent to the sea, and I purchase 8 infantry and 1 battleship, then I’m obliged to place the 8 infantry in the value 8 territory and the 1 battleship in the value 1 territory. Meaning that I’m not allowed to place 1 infantry in the value 1 territory and 7 infantries in the value 8 territory, losing the battleship (since, at this point, I couldn’t mobilize it anymore, due to the placement actions I already defined). Therefore, the battleship purchase makes me unable to place 1 infantry in the value 1 territory, in this case.

All correct?

@Panther said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

@J-o-C said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that you are not supposed to intentionally purchase more than you can place. That rule is just there in case you make a mistake. I could be wrong though.

This is correct and has been clarified/added to the FAQ-sheets for all games that were released after Anniversary edition (first print), only.

In my mind, this phrase literally means:

“This is correct only for the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”
AND
“This has been clarified/added to the FAQ-sheets only for the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”

However, what I believe you mean is:

“This is correct (at least) for the Anniversary edition and the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”
BUT
“This has been clarified/added to the FAQ-sheets only for the games that were released after the first print of the Anniversary edition.”

In any case, I suppose I’m still waiting to satisfy my curiosity about anything before Anniversary…

Also, I want to point out that my second case (undermobilizing) is not necessarily only the inevitable consequence of the first (overpurchasing), but also refers to not mobilizing something you can still mobilize, like in the case of (purposely) not mobilizing one or more units while you can mobilize all units that are in the mobilization zone.

@Cernel said in Overpurchasing and undermobilizing:

And how about deciding to lose something that you can place (I realize this would make no sense)?

Actually, it might make sense, even in Classic and Revised, in the case of having purchased a factory and, then, as a consequence of very harsh dice, you might prefer losing rather than placing it (assuming you are not in 3rd Edition Iron Blitz with Scorched Earth on, that is).

Am I correct believing that in every strategic Axis&Allies game since Classic 1st edition it is either stated or implied that you can never intentionally purchase more units than you can possibly place and you cannot end the Place/Mobilize Units phase, if you have anything left to place that you can still place?

I know both matters became relevant only starting with Anniversary, as if you, instead, lose what you don’t place, you have virtually no reasons to do either on purpose, but just wondering.

I’m mostly wondering if in Revised you could intentionally and deliberately pull the strategy of purchasing more units than you can place to, then, decide what to place and what to lose? And how about deciding to lose something that you can place (I realize this would make no sense)?