Posts made by kcdzim

@Kilukru:

From the rules : Any sea zone that contains only enemy sub. does not stop the movement of a sea unit. … . There is an exception … A submarine can attack any transport that moves into or through its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warship (note : submarines are NOT surface warship) … Each submarine fire once (att. 2) at the transports … any undestroyed transports can continue their planned movement.

Note : sea unit ending their combat movement in a zone containing only enemy sub may choose to attack or not.

But that doesn’t answer whether you can engage the sub with your sub AND move the transport through, which I felt was the gist of the question.  I don’t believe you can.  Once a seazone is contested, all movement should be blocked.  So you can choose to ignore the anzac sub (and he gets a free shot), or you can choose to engage the anzac sub (and the subs fire on each other), but you can’t choose to do both.  Unless you can.  Which I guess is ok, but still wierd.  In which case the Anzac sub should still get a pot shot.

@hyogoetophile:

I would argue (looking at the sub-shot rule in djensen’s preview) that subs only shoot if it’s subs defending vs transports moving through. Plus, I think you can move through a battle, because I’ve seen mention of how if a naval unit decides to kill a transport or sub, it has to stop. This indicates that other units move on through. Someone just please bootleg the AAP40 rulebook to stop this insanity; because we evidently can’t help ourselves.

The whole ignoring subs rule totally throws me.  You know, it really should be “If you do not have a destroyer, you CANNOT choose to engage combat in a seazone with only submarines” and I don’t believe that’s the case.  However, I really don’t see how you can move through one seazone with a sub with some units and leave others there to fight.  A seazone is either contested or it’s not, and as all combat moves happen at the same time, you shouldn’t be able to choose to move through a contested seazone, even if it’s a single sub.  It should be either “on” or “off”.

@Omega:

Just a quick question : So the AC now has 0 attack. What is his defense? Still 2?

Did they modify the defense on the battleboard?

Robert

0/2/2/16 with 2 hits.  the battleboard is incorrect and lists it as attacking on 1.

@Tralis:

I suppose the real question is if there’s any situation where one would definitely want a tac bomber vs just a fighter? There seems to be more of a clear divide between the role of other units.

It’s just like buying artillery.  You normally wouldn’t stack artillery, you’d buy more infantry supported by some artillery.  Now we have the option to buy tac bombers to support the fighters.  You still need fighters, and unless you have many fighters or many tanks, you’re probably not buying tacs.  But once you have enough fighters and tanks, that 4 hit on the offense is a big fat deal.  Would it be worth to you in a battle to pay one ipc at the start of the fight for a unit to fire one point higher?  I know I’ve had rounds where I’d kill for that tac.  And then you don’t have to retreat it as far (like that very very very vulnerable bomber).

You pay a premium in A&A for offensive power.  The units as a general rule (for price) favor defense (or at least trended to though some of that has changed as subs & carriers were downgraded and transports eliminated from combat).

@General:

For that reason I keep my carriers back and out of combat.

Unless the seazone you’re moving to battle in has your own adjacent airfield and/or port (especially airfield for the scrambling of fighters).  In which case it’s a free soaker hit with no real drawback.

@ksmckay:

Scenario
Japan has 2 subs and a transport.  Anzac has a sub.  Japan wants to send one sub and one transport through the sea zone with the anzac sub.  If this was it then it would be easy, sub gets a pot shot.  Now Japan also wants to attack the anzac sub with the 2nd sub.  Does the anzac sub still get a pot shot?  I am guessing maybe it does but it seems a little unclear.  Seems a little unfair that the anzac sub could submerge and not fight the attacking japanese sub but still get to take a shot at the transport.

I’m pretty sure this is a case where you can’t send a transport THROUGH a contested seazone to a seazone further on (for an amphib assault or otherwise).  If you engage the Anzac sub, the transport is stuck there until the battle is over (anzac sub destroyed or submerged) because the seazone now has a battle and you can’t pass through a battle.  The Anzac sub only tries to fire on the transport if you’re running the blockade.  Basically, if you choose to ignore the sub, he fires on the tranny.  If you don’t ignore the sub, he’s firing on your sub and if you lose you’ll need to retreat the tranny (not keep moving forward).  Best plan is to not escort a tranny with a sub.

@Hamster45:

1. Does the bombing nation elect which facility to bomb and only 1 facility gets the all of the damage?

The bombing nation chooses which bomber is firing on which facility.  If you send in 3 bombers you could assign them to bomb the naval base, the air base and the factory.  Or all three on the facility.  Or whatever choice you want.  And each of the facilities have AA to fire, but they don’t ALL fire at one bomber.  Only once for each bomber specifically attacking that facility.

I suspect that they’ll be really for Russia in Europe as well, because they’ll be more useful for defense than a bomber and be very helpful for the russian attack/retreat hit and runs on germany using armor to wear the front line down but not leaving it to be destroyed.  I dunno, I haven’t played Pacific, doubt i will unless there’s a TripleA map, but I see those Tacs as pretty helpful.  Strategic bombing is a heavy investment as a strategy (and not one that’s suited to Japan early in the game anyway) so this gives you the power of the bomber in battles and you can leave it on the frontline.  As the game wears on maybe you’ll upgrade to strategic bombers, but somehow, until it’s the global game, I kinda doubt it and even then I see the tac bomber as pretty essential to the pacific naval battles.

That said, once the global game has tech, Heavy Bombers and Jet Fighters will make the Tac worthless.  Unless they get Spotters as an upgrade and you can start picking your hits.

@Tralis:

So what do Tac Bombers do that make them worth the purchase?

Or you can think of it as a cheaper bomber that’s not a sitting duck on defense.  A 4 on attack is actually pretty huge in a game like this.  Anything hitting 2/3s of the time is pretty dang helpful, especially in battles where every unit you kill in the first round is better for you in subsequent rounds.  And they get to go on trips around the pacific without needing dry land.

@mohare6:

Looks like china is rediculously weak

China looks weak, however Japan can’t actually engage many of China’s infantry on the first round (they’re all two spaces in).  So when japan moves inland China will still have the Tigers and fodder, so every Japanese territory will need at least 2 infantry if they hope to hold many of them.  Burma road seems to be a serious thorn in Japans side if they don’t dedicate a lot of troops to china.  And if they do that it means they’re weaker against the UK/Anzac forces.  They aren’t meant to be a major fighting force but they WILL be a distraction.  From the reports so far, Japan has a seriously balancing act and China is a huge part of it, not an easy one.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

Larry said something to the point that the US would be strongly encouraged to have a fleet at Pearl? I don’t see it. Why wouldn’t you just pull back and build. I think you lose too much of the histroical flavor with the 1940 start of the game. For me I want to destroy the US fleet at Pearl and try to conquer the rest in time before the US regroups and destroys Japan. You know like WWII.

Assuming Japan engages the UK on turn 1 or 2, if the US has a strong enough fleet at Pearl you will force Japan to keep honest with some ships and defense on Japan and Korea.  If the US chooses to keep pulled back then Japan is free to expand south without worrying about a single 3 space transport move from the port in Pearl.

Obviously if Japan is simply maneuvering and hasn’t engaged the US up to US3 then the US has less reason to stay on Hawaii, unless to protect against naval bombardment.

@shohoku201:

as I recall from playing TripleA i don’t think this was allowed.  I can be wrong since it’s been a while since I actually played on TripleA

In revised, the planes are supposed to be in the territory with the factory adjacent to the seazone where the carrier is floated.  TripleA reflects this.

In AA50 the plane must end in the seazone of the territory where the carrier will be floated.  I assume this rule now was carried over to AA1942.  TripleA also reflects this, although the first time you try it’s almost an act of faith that your planes won’t disappear.

@shohoku201:

Can existing fighters and tactical bombers (on a tt with an industrial complex) be placed on a newly bought/placed aircraft carrier?

Not if they’re on land; they need to end non combat in the seazone where the carrier will be floated.

@plumsmugler:

While I’ve only played the game once I’ve noticed several flaws:

• Why doesn’t the US declare war it’s first turn to get it’s massive bonus income?  This seems to be the most logical thing for them since Japan will probably initiate its attack on it’s second turn anyway.  Might as well allow America to get another extra 40 IPCs.

• This is an admittedly petty and minuscule complaint but the Japanese tactical bombers are incredibly difficult to set on the aircraft carriers correctly because of their little landing gear on the bottom of the piece.  Maybe I have OCD but I have to have the planes sitting on the carriers correctly before I can do anything else.  I spent a lot of time doing this.

The reason the US can’t declare war until fired upon to reflect the isolationist mindset of pre WW2 US.  We didn’t want to be involved in another war after WW1 (heck, we didn’t even join the league of nations), so we let the rest of the world sort itself out.  Until Japan poked us.  If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl it’s possible even if Japan had hassled the UK in the east Indies we still may not have gone to war.  Doubtful, but possible.

The Vals have landing gear?  Oh maaaan, now I may actually need to get the game.  Just after my friend who actually enjoys A&A moved and I no longer have a truely interested party to play against.  sigh.

@jeffdestroyer:

maybe round 2 might be better.  get everything into position.  we will see

Probably the only way to accomplish the “surprise” attack is to start immediately, but the extra 100 ipcs for the US could really sting.

I know it’s not in keeping with the way the game is played, but probably the only way to actually make a surprise attack for Japan even sort of work would be to have used some sort of fleet marker to hide the strength of Japanese naval power at the start of the game.  The allies would have recon to tell them the general area of unit movement (marker), but Japan would have the advantage disguising strength so that when the attack started the allies would either be weakly defended in some locations and strongly in others (but based on incomplete knowledge of japanese strength), or else spread evenly.  Even then that’s not much of a surprise once you’re familiar with the starting strength.

@Stoney229:

@djensen:

If the USA is not at war with Japan by the beginning of the collect income phase during the third turn, then the USA is immediately at war with Japan.

So the USA collects 50 from Western USA on it’s 3rd turn no matter what, right?  So there no disadvantage to anyone declaring war after USA’s second turn, right?

If Japan captures West USA, does it collect 50 from it or 10?  Is West USA a capital, i.e. does Japan get USA’s money in this case?

If you manage to capture West USA, the point is probably moot.  As for Japan attacking US on J3…  correct.  If it’s a good move you have no reason not to.  They will get the bonus anyway at the end of US3 even if you don’t.

@shohoku201:

If Japan attacks on J1, how much does US start off with on US1?  is it 17 or 57? I would assume they start off with 17 and at the end of US1 during the collect income phase they collect 57 (if they did not lose any tt).

The US would still start with only 17.  If war is declared on the second turn, the US STILL wouldn’t have the bonus 40 available to spend until the buy phase of the 3rd turn.  Think of it as the time it takes for the US to effectively mobilize itself after the sneak attack.

National objectives work the same way.  You don’t collect extra money at the start of the game for any objectives you happen to be making at the start of the game.  For example, in AA50, at setup the US doesn’t get extra dough because she controls philipines, central USA, blah de blah de blah.  Objectives only kick in at the collect income phase at the end of a turn, not at beginning of game.

@Stoney229:

can one make noncombat moves before declaring war, and then announce an attack on a convoy, thus declaring war after the noncombat move has been made?

Convoy attacks are not combat moves, or non combat moves.  They are declared during the collect income phase of an opponent when you have ships in their convoy zone.

I believe that Japan could move their fleet into a seazone with a british convoy marker (and in fact a british fleet) while not at war.  During the british turn, during their collect income phase, Japan decides whether they will interdict the convoy.  At that point, a convoy attack is a declaration of war.

@Krupp:

Is America at war with Germany on the first turn? Did Germany declare war on America in 1944? Or was it much earlier. I’m confused because this would be a huge bonus for both the Axis player and the Allied player. Germany has the first few turns to beat up France, prepare for Barbarossa and maybe even a SeaLion. This would also mean that the American player now has these turns to completely focus all his builds in the Pacific (if the Japanese player declares war early).

Certainly not 1944.  US entered in '41.  Off the top of my head and not doublechecking, I believe the sequence was:  Japan declared war on US & UK (but wasn’t received prior to attacks on Pearl), US declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on US, US declared war on Germany & Italy.  My guess with Europe will be that the US can funnel as many “supplies” (units) to britain as it wants, but won’t be at war until turn 3 OR one of the Axis engages them (convoy or otherwise).

Was it established that the US actually CANNOT engage an axis opponent in Pacific to reflect the US reluctance to enter the war?  And will this be the same in Europe?

@elque:

Thank for the fine updates on the new rules. Regarding convoys: Can we assume that subs and surface ships designated to disrupt convoys can participate in no other naval battles during the same game turn?

No, because convoy disruption takes place during the collect income phase, and has nothing to do with combat moves.  If an enemy still has ships in a convoy zone at the end of your turn it would make perfect sense that your convoy is disrupted, regardless of whether you tried to destroy them that turn, because they’re STILL “blocking” your IPC’s from reaching the mainland.