Posts made by OutsideLime

I get the logic, but what is your source to determine that this is correct?  And even if we can safely say that it lands after all Combats are over, exactly when does it land?  At the beginning of the enemy’s Noncombat Move?  At the end of it?  After all land & sea units have done their Noncombats but before his planes have landed?

Let’s say that instead of being limited to one potential emergency-landing-spot, my Fighter has several options.  Now, the timing of my landing matters.  If I land first, my opponent can adjust his movements to compensate.  If my opponent does all of his NCMs and then I pick a landing spot, I get to take his positioning into account before I land.  Either way, someone gets a slight advantage, and I am fairly certain that the timing has not been clarified anywhere in any ruleset.

~Josh

Brain-burner for ya.

UK has a small fleet in SZ35 (off India - note that India is the only territory that this seazone borders).  The fleet includes an Aircraft Carrier with a Fighter on it.

Japan attacks the fleet with its own fleet, and also attacks UK-owned India with some land units from French-IndoChina.  No amphibious assault involved.

Japan chooses to resolve the sea-combat first.  It sinks all UK boats (including the UK Carrier), leaving only the UK Fighter alive, survives the final defensive fire with at least 1 boat intact, then retreats (or submerges, it doesn’t matter which).  The UK Fighter uses its 1-space emergency-landing movement to land in India (the only option in range), which is still a friendly territory.

The land combat in India is now resolved.  The Fighter that came from the Carrier is now in the unusual situation of participating in 2 combats in a single turn.

Thoughts?  Is that possible?  The scenario could also happen at sea, if the only emergency-landing-spot for a Fighter that has lost its Carrier is an adjacent sea-zone (with a friendly Carrier that has room for a Fighter to land) where Combat has been declared but not yet resolved.

It all hinges on one of two issues that I believe are unclarified:

1)  When the emergency-landing must take place.  If it must happen immediately after the combat during which the Carrier is destroyed, then the Fighter can legally fight twice.  If it happens at the end of Japan’s Non-combat Movement, then the Fighter must wait to see whether India falls before discovering if it has a safe emergency-landing-spot or not.

2)  Whether a “contested area” (a territory or seazone that has had enemy forces combat-moved into it, but the combat is not yet resolved) counts as a “friendly” space for Fighters to emergency-land in.

What do you think?

~Josh

@losttribe04:

New Paint Brush,

If you had the above mentioned Sub fleet why would I fly the fighters back at all until your subs retreated or were killed off.

Since the defending fleet is all subs, it can’t shoot back at the all-plane attack force.  (Subs cannot attack air units.)  So, the only move for the defender - unless he wants his subs killed for some strange reason - is to use the 7 remaining subs’ special submerge ability (no other defending unit may ever retreat from a combat, just subs in this special manner) to escape from the fight.  It’s almost an automatic thing, since there is no other sensible choice for the defender.  Newpaintbrush was just making the obvious assumption that the defender would do so, (leaving the planes with no option themselves but to fly away, targetless) without stating it.

~Josh

@newpaintbrush:

I believe that AA guns revert to their ORIGINAL OWNER when liberated.

So if you had an AA gun that was produced by the Americans, that got captured by the Germans, if the UK captured the territory that that AA gun was in, control of the AA gun would go to the America player.

Excellent!  So it goes like this:

1.  Egypt starts off British.

2.  Germany conquers it and builds the IC and AA, which are German.

3.  Japan ships an AA gun to Egypt, which is Japanese in a German territory (use a national-control marker (NM) to indicate the Japanese AA while it is in a German-controlled territory).

4.  US liberates Egypt.  Egypt, the IC, and both AA guns turn British, but the Japanese AA keeps its NM, and the German AA gets a German NM underneath it.  Britain has captured and controls those AA units like normal, the NMs are simply there as an indicator of which Axis power their control reverts to, should they be liberated by either Axis power.

5.  Japan retakes Egypt.  Egypt, the IC, and the Japanese-marked AA become Japanese.  You can remove the Japanese NM.  The German-marked AA gun reverts to German control, and keeps its German NM.

• All of this assumes that all capitals are under the original nation’s control - it gets trickier when they aren’t.

… I think I might just mark my AA Guns with a little patch of colour to represent their ownership… would solve the problem of marking and unmarking using NMs, and you could just obey the following points:

a) When an AA is in its original owner’s territory, the original owner controls it.
b) When an AA is in a friendly territory, the original owner controls it.
c) When an AA is in an enemy-controlled territory, that enemy controls it.

~Josh

1.  Egypt starts off British.

2.  Germany conquers it and builds the IC and AA, which are German.

3.  Japan ships an AA gun to Egypt, which is Japanese in a German territory (use a national-control marker to indicate).

4.  US liberates Egypt.  Egypt, the IC, and both AA guns turn British.

5.  Japan retakes Egypt.  Egypt, the IC, and both AA guns turn Japanese.

• All of this assumes that all capitals are under the original nation’s control - it gets trickier when they aren’t.

~Josh

… not to mention the US complex in Sinkiang!  8 American tanks in Asia on US2?  Done!

~Josh

Hey Mork,

Each Complex can only mobilize a maximum number of units equal to the income value of the territory it occupies.  Therefore, you can only mobilize 3 units per turn in India, or 8 in the United Kingdom, for that matter.

Also, you say you have 3AA, but only 1 AA in any terrotory is actually active… having more than one of them in a territory does not increase the defensive value of your antiarcraft system at all.

That being said, India is a good solid bet, Australia can be fun if you give it some early US support, Anglo-Egypt will inspire some extremely fierce fighting for Africa, and South Africa is a bit slow to get in the game but is okay once the train of troops comes into contact with the enemy.  I have never placed a Complex in Canada because it seems too simliar to the UK in terms of placement flexibility.

All other original UK territories are Value:1 and therefore a waste to place a Complex on, in my opinion.

India can be reinforced with the Russian armour from Caucasus in R1, if you can spare it.  Both Russian fighters can also get there in R1, but that means that both of them have the option to attack only West Russia in R1, by virtue of their movement limitations.

~Josh

My favourite player is myself.

Every time I play, I root for me.

~Josh

Capacity is not the only issue though.  Placement flexibility is important too.  Having more than one location from which to mobilize troops gives you more tactical options, and forces the foe to adapt to new centres of strength.

~Josh

No good for me either.

~Josh

But that outcome of those two dice is the same whether they are thrown simultaneously or one after the other - what’s your point exactly?

If I’m rolling for three Infantry to hit in an attack against 1 Infantry, I’ll roll 'em one at a time.

If I miss the first one, I know I’ll have to try harder to roll a 1 on the second one.

If I miss THAT one too, I’ll know that I have to buckle down and stop messing around with the third.

~Josh

There is also the interesting issue of the team imbalance built into the game itself.  Playing Axis is extremely different from playing Allies.  You could be much better at playing one side than the other.

Imagine that we have two players, and also that we can accurately quantify each player’s skill on a scale of one to ten.  Let’s say both players have the same levels of skill for all nations.

Example:

Russia 8
Germany 6
UK 9
Japan 5
USA 8

Now, looking at their statistics, it is plain that the players are equally skilled.  Both of them are better at playing Allies than Axis nations by a good few notches.  Thus, when they play each other, the Axis player is at a serious disadvantage.  Equal yet unequal.  Another facet of the game that is part of the equation.

~Josh

The logic being:

The AA Gun was technically involved in a Combat (even if it did not fire at planes during the combat), so it cannot make a Non-combat move.  The only pieces that defy this general rule are planes (explicitly excepted in the rulebook) and Panzerblitzing German tanks (German National Advantage - also explicitly excepted.)

This might also be explained as a common behaviour of the grey pieces - AA Guns and Complexes - in that if they are captured or liberated, the new owner doesn’t assume functional control of them until the end of the turn during which their capture or liberation occurred.  I actually like this justification better than the one above.

~Josh

@Jennifer:

I never understood why we needed the term bridging.  All it does is confuse people.

Bridging is just using a transport like you normally would except it doesn’t move anyway.  Whoopy.  It’s the same as saying you load 2 infantry on to a transport, the transport moves zero sea zones and unloads the infantry into combat/onto friendly territory.

Exaaaactly.

~Josh

and bridging is only possible to friendly territories and not under invasions.

That is incorrect.  “Bridging” is not a different thing than transporting land units normally - the only difference is that the transport does not move to a new sea zone.  You can “bridge” units into a hostile territory as an amphibious assault.

Imagine a German transport In the Baltic sea.  It can transport (“bridge”) units from Germany to Karelia (assuming Karelia is Allied-controlled) as an amphibious assault.

~Josh

The statement had been made that AA can fire at aircraft flying over them.  Which is true if the AA is on land.  But if that AA gun is at sea on a TRN, then the AF can fly right over it and ignore the TRN, the AA, and anything else below them on the seas.

… this fact is clarified on page 30 of the Operations Manual, in the Transports section.  “Land units on a transport are cargo; they cannot attack or defend while at sea.”

~Josh

ooh, nice one!

That is true.  The only unit that forces a confrontation with your air units are enemy Antiaircraft Guns.  All other units may be flown over without combat being initiated.

~Josh

Let me pose this hypothetical related to the discussion.

Let’s say you could clone yourself perfectly, an exact double of you with all the same memories, experiences, behaviour, intelligence, everything.

Now sit down to play games of chess with your clone.

Do you think that every game will result in a draw?

Not rhetorical, honestly asking the question.

~Josh

I have a table in the basement that has a game-in-progress set up on it pretty much permanently.  We play as much as possible and then let it sit until the next session.  We have recently gotten into the habit of having players take home “position-recorder” printouts so that players can study the layout, and plan moves, in between sessions.  It does a lot for keeping that first-round-back length down.  Nobody has to say “Ok, where were we again?”

~Josh