Posts made by Maddog77

@Maxiheimer:

Posted by: Gen.Nehring
Insert Quote
   Hi, yes that is a common question for new players. Actually the rule is that when an aircraft carrier is attacked by anything, the planes are considered to be in the air defending the aircraft carrief like real ‘CAP’ which means combat air patrol. So yes, if you take a hit on an aircraft carrier then their planes have one move to find a safe and legal landing spot or they are gone! The only time that a fighter stays onan aircraft carrier is when the carrier has another partner’s plane on it. Then it is not in the air defending and is considered ‘cargo’. I hope this helps sir? wink
Posted on: September 08, 2016, 07:06:34 pm Posted by: WoodyWanKenobi

I am pretty sure that allied air craft are considered cargo only when attacking. Since the carriers get attacked in this scenario i would say that they fly up to defend just if they where your own.

Please correct me if i am wrong

You are wrong. Under the unit profiles, aircraft carriers, it says “Air units on a friendly power’s carrier are always treated as cargo on the carrier owners turn”. In addition, it goes on to say “A damaged carrier can’t conduct air operations, which means that no air units may take off or land on it. Any guest air units that were on board the carrier as cargo at the time of the when it was damaged are trapped onboard and can’t leave, attack, or defend until the carrier is repaired.”  So no, air units on a friendly carrier cannot “fly up to defend”.

@P@nther:

@Maddog77:

@P@nther:

@Maddog77:

@WILD:

However if the transport (or sub) was in sz 93, then you can ignore it or attack it. If you kill it you can’t use bombardment on S France, but you can still amphib through the sz.

Why not? If a lone plane is sent to sink the lone xport, why would that negate the BB shore bombardment?

In case of an amphibious assault you can either conduct a sea battle or offshore bombard. Never both.

But I would think that since a xport is not a war ship, the BB can still ignore it because it is not blocking any navel movement. (Meaning there’s no “clearing of the sea zone” of warships before landing the amphibious assault.)  And if no navel units are attacking the xport, then there is no navel battle that the warships are engaged in prior to the landing. The lone plane is simply sinking the lone xport with it cargo. It would be the same if the xport was in another SZ….

Sorry, this is simply wrong. The rules are pretty clear:

@rulebook:

Amphibious Assault Sequence
1. Sea combat
2. Battleship and cruiser bombardment
3. Land combat

Step 1. Sea Combat
If there are defending surface warships and/or
scrambled air units, sea combat occurs. If there are
only defending submarines and/or transports, the
attacker can choose to ignore those units or conduct sea combat.
If sea combat occurs, all attacking and defending sea and air
units present must participate in the battle. (Even if the attacker
chose to ignore defending subs and/or transports, they will still
be involved in the battle if the defender scrambles air units and
forces a sea battle.) Conduct the sea combat using the rules for
General Combat (page 18), then go to step 3 (land combat).
If no sea combat occurs, go to step 2 (bombardment).

Step 2. Battleship and Cruiser Bombardment
If there was NOT a combat in the sea zone from which you
are offloading units from transports, any accompanying
battleships and cruisers in that sea zone can conduct a one-time
bombardment of one coastal territory or island group being
attacked.

The Plane attacking and sinking the Transport is a sea combat. Plus: If you decide to engange the Transport the Battleship participates in the sea battle.
Thus offshore bombardment is not possible.

HTH :-)

Thanks for the clarifications and corrections. I was stuck on the phrase “defending surface warship” which, it’s my understanding, in G40 a xport is not a warship since it cannot attack or defend. All other A&A games I own, the xport can at least defend with a roll of 1.

@P@nther:

@Maddog77:

@WILD:

However if the transport (or sub) was in sz 93, then you can ignore it or attack it. If you kill it you can’t use bombardment on S France, but you can still amphib through the sz.

Why not? If a lone plane is sent to sink the lone xport, why would that negate the BB shore bombardment?

In case of an amphibious assault you can either conduct a sea battle or offshore bombard. Never both.

But I would think that since a xport is not a war ship, the BB can still ignore it because it is not blocking any navel movement. (Meaning there’s no “clearing of the sea zone” of warships before landing the amphibious assault.)  And if no navel units are attacking the xport, then there is no navel battle that the warships are engaged in prior to the landing. The lone plane is simply sinking the lone xport with it cargo. It would be the same if the xport was in another SZ….

@WILD:

However if the transport (or sub) was in sz 93, then you can ignore it or attack it. If you kill it you can’t use bombardment on S France, but you can still amphib through the sz.

Why not? If a lone plane is sent to sink the lone xport, why would that negate the BB shore bombardment?

I find this topic rather surprising. I’ve never really thought of some of the points made here. (Such as be able to actually move an extra space with some units.) The ROE for retreating has not changed since the original A&A and I can count on one hand the number of time I’ve retreated. I only retreat if the battle has gone horribly bad and it’s obvious I cannot win w/o losing my remaining forces. By the time that happens, it usually means I’m going to lose the rest of my force when my opponents counterattacks on their turn.

But after reading this thread, I might have to see where a “tactical” retreat might indeed benefit my long term objectives. As far as that being “wrong” or not “fair”, I would argue that sure it is. I’m sure at some point in the history of war, some army engaged an opposing force to help clear a path for other friendly forces to escape into. Seems perfectly logical to me.

@simon33:

@SS:

I don’t agree with any kind of charts or battle calculators being used for any of the games.  :wink:

My usual opponent thinks like this but all it does is causes a lot of time to be wasted. Pretty annoying.

IMHO….any good player does not need odds calculators or apps. A good and experienced player can, in a matter of seconds, sum up the chances of a possible battle. I’ve never used electronic gadgets or apps and pretty much know what my odds are of winning or losing a battle by simply LOOKING at the board and stack of units. I’ve had a few guests over the years who won’t make a move w/o “consulting” their gadgets. THAT’S annoying in my book. In my bunker game room, electronic gadgets are outlawed.  :-D

@Marshmallow:

Well, if your opponent messes up or his luck goes sideways too, the game could easily be salvagable. On the other hand, with average results and no major errors on your opponent’s part, do you really think you can recover from these failures?

As I said in my first post…of course I think I can recover. I have before. “No guts -no glory” Right?  :wink:

Personally, I find your defeatist attitude interesting. I’ve had just about every battle you list go south but did not “throw in the towel” as you seem to think is the only option. In my mind, that’s the excitement and challenge of this game. Sure the dynamics change, but that simply means so must the game plan. Combat is fluid and generals must adapt to the outcome of every battle. If it goes as expected or planned…outstanding. But if it doesn’t, we must come up with an alternative plan or action to offset or regain the loss. I have indeed recovered from losing most of G’s aircraft on the opening turn w/ GB ships still standing. To say “If I lose X amount of aircraft or GB has ships left means the game cannot be won” is, in my mind, short sighted. To me that simply adds to the adrenaline level and excitement of the game. Even if your prophecy proves true, I must at least try to continue the game because there’s always the chance my opponents plans will go south too. Anyway…interesting question. I just never like to throw in the towel so quickly. I love to play it out. Even if I’m on the losing side. I always learn something from every game.

I find that a MiC and 2 xports in J1 is my best strategy for my long term goals and plans. Then I purchase 3 tanks to place there on J2 & J3 to compliment the existing ground units in China. Usually, by start J3 I’ve pretty well cleaned China out and am ready to knock on India’s door, grab the DEI’ Phillipenes, Guam & Wake. J4 is kill India while setting up a J5 invasion of Australia. Of course this all depends on my opponents skill level and the dice gods being somewhat fair. That’s what makes this game so exciting in my book……the best laid plans…you all know the rest.  :wink:

I use dice towers that I built. The tray can be seen from most angles around the table. When rolling, the players are standing and at one end of the table. My house rules are for dice rolling are pretty simple.

1. Dice that bounce out of the tray or are leaners are re-rolled.
2. All dice are removed from the tray before re-rolling. (This prevent the re-rolled dice from tipping an existing dice)
3. All hits are counted by both players and tallied
4. If too many dice are accidently rolled, that roll doesn’t count and all dice are re-rolled.
5. If too little dice are accidently rolled, only the additional dice needed are rolled.
6. Start with the smallest numerical units first, then work your way up. (in other words, roll all 1’s first, then all the 2 or less units, then all the 3 or less, etc.)

One thing my buddies & I do when making our purchases is we hand the IPC bills we spend (I still use the paper IPC’s) to the opposing player. That players double checks the amount against the purchases then returns the IPCs to the “bank” and hand back any change if required. After years of experience, this works well to speed up the game and eliminate any “concerns” about a players honesty. We all do make honest mistakes too so this just keeps things fair.

@seancb:

The museum if fantastic. There are some very good restaurants as well. If you like German style food, you are in for a treat. There is also a very good pizza place on the west side of town on 290 if the kiddo wants something less formal. Some very good tasting rooms for the local wineries close by if you like wine. I also recommend you drive to Kerrville and go swim at the river. Hope you all enjoy your central Texas trip.
sean…

Thanks for the tips Sean! Much appreciated. And I do love German cuisine too. Really appreciate the swimming tip as the grandson  I are pretty much water bugs & love the water every chance we get. This’ll help make the vacation even better.

After looking at the game table (board) I can understand why this idea is intriguing. But after thinking a bit, Russia & GB can very easily keep any the black sea ship free with their air force. At least if I was Russia, I would sink anything built there. Also would love Germany to spend that kind of $$ ion an IC & navy instead of tanks, art & inf……still, it might be fun to give it a go sometime.

So I’m very excited! Next week we’re heading down south to Oklahoma to see my youngest son graduate from Army boot camp. (So very proud of him and his decision to serve our great country) We’ll spend two days with him then he get shipped off to another Army base for months of combat medic training. My wife and I decided to turn it into a two-week vacation and, being the WWII history nut I am, the 1st thing I zeroed in on was the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg Texas. (http://www.pacificwarmuseum.org/) We booked our lodgings and plan on spending two days exploring it. By the looks of the web site and comments, we’re in for a real treat! My 7-year-old grandson is going with us so we’ll see how much I actually get to see with him in tow. I think he and Grandma might have to head back to the hotel w/o Grandpa.  :wink: Anyway….thought I’d share that with my fellow history enthusiasts here. I’ll let you know what I learn. Maybe I’ll get some insight that’ll help me play Japan (A&A Global) better. LOL.

@Arthur:

@Maddog77:

I’m kind of in my own pyridine

I have never used pyridine in that fashion before.  Is this a typo/spell corrector or an unusual idiom?  As a chemist, I am truly curious.Â

LOL! um……paradigm. I didn’t even catch that…spell check.

@ShadowHAwk:

Should this whole tread not be in the find players section?

I wasn’t trying to find players to play. I was just wondering who else was playing a F2F game and thought we could share where were playing and some descriptions of how the game went. That was it.

Sorry Guys…I meant playing F2F. I have never played AAA on-line so I’m kind of in my own pyridine when I talk A&A. I should know better on this forum.

I’m curious has to who is playing this game and where. Kind of neat to think it’s going on elsewhere in the world at the same time I’m throwing dice and praying to the dice Gods. ;-)

I am! I thought if anyone else is, we could post who won or lost & maybe share some highlights from the game. Just curious. We start at 10:00 am tomorrow.

@Shadowseer:

Would you be ok with new players as well? (Just got the game myself, love it so far)

Absolutely! All are welcome. We all started new at some point, right? Besides, I like it when a new player joins a game because they bring fresh, new ideas & possibilities to the table.
Gaming this Saturday if you’re interested.

@simon33:

@Maddog77:

@simon33:

I tend to think the major reason for buying tanks would be to threaten a take down of Ukraine and/or Stalingrad. At least you can stop unit production for a turn. Is that it? Otherwise, I struggle to see the advantage.

Really? You struggle to see the advantage of a stack of tanks rolling through the country side paired w/ tac-bombers? The offence & defensive power speaks for itself I think. Add that to a stack of infantry for fodder and you�ve got a pretty good chance of wiping out opposing forces then possibly blitzing the whole countryside on the next move. Can�t do that w/ a stack of more expensive air units. Jmho.

How does this defend Moscow?

I thought the three rules for playing USSR were: defend Moscow, defend Moscow, defend Moscow.

Well….that’s close…I go by these golden rules of mine for Russia.

1. Attack/counterattack when & where you can. 2) Defend Moscow. 3) Defend Moscow.

Also, My statement about a stack of tanks was “Generally speaking” for the advantage of tanks for any country. Not just Russia.

I’m the type of player that looks for any chance to attack. I’m not much for a turtling strategy. I do not play using electronic gadgets & calculators that show me percentages or odds of a battle either. I’m old school I guess…I can look at the board and pretty well know what my chances are of winning/losing a battle. That said, I’ve been known to attack w/ even or less odds of winning and hope the dice Gods smile on me & not my opponent. Sometimes it works. I’ve seen games turned around and pulled from the brink based on one or two major battles. Those are my favorite games as it really gets the adrenaline flowing & the heart pumping! Who has more fun than us A&A players? (Besides porn stars.  :wink:  )