While we’re talking about scrambles, I got a question.
Let’s say one scrambles a fighter and the fighter survives, BUT the territory it scrambled from is taken in the same combat move. What happens to the fighter? Is it gone or can it be landed in an adjacent friendly territory?
God damn, if air bases could scramble 3 spaces away… jesus, I would never, ever want to play Allies. You could do horrendous things as the Germans with the bases in Paris and West Germany.
The ability to scramble London fighters to defend Paris in G1 would definitely throw Germany for a loop, so it wouldn’t totally be a one-way affair.
kamikazes are basicaly useless in the game, unless there is a huge naval battle
.
Could someone please clarify the kamikaze rules? I thought that you could kamikaze any enemy surface warships in the marked zones during combat movement but I guess I’ve been completely wrong this whole time.
They’re a pre-combat option I believe. No combat, no kamikaze.
I don’t recall having ever used them even though I mostly play Axis. All they do is add a small additional amount of uncertainty to Allied attacks, so a little more force needs to be sent to establish a buffer against them. By the time the Allies are attacking those zones, the size of navies in play are too large for kamikazes to be meaningful.
If they weren’t in the game, who would miss them?
This is one of those ideas for when you’re bored to death with the same-ol’ same-ol’ and don’t care if you win or lose the game.
Let’s just say there are plenty of reasons why Japan never does this.
Defending SZ6 is a game-long affair… it really needs to be calculated from the get-go, what the US can put in there and when and what needs to be left behind to defend it. It is basically THE defensive calculation that Japan needs to make, and the US for its part needs to be making it from the opposite point of view.
The Triple-A notes very clearly state that it is the players’ responsibility to know the rules and if that the Triple-A engine doesn’t get them 100% right.
Well, the name of the game is Axis, and Allies Don’t Get to Make Moves
@Marshmallow:
Does anyone else find this silly? Does anyone house-rule it to allow NCM walk-ons, like when taking control of a friendly neutral?
The part that I find silly is the UK division, whereby UK Atlantic can’t even liberate and control UK Pacific territories if India has been taken, and UK Pacific can’t liberate UK Atlantic territories if London has been taken.
Marsh
That’s an artifact of Global being a simultanteously-played concatenation of two separate games.
If an attacker without a DD initiates combat in a zone with a defending sub, the owner of the sub decides whether or not to submerge it, which removes the subs from combat.
Any remaining units in the combat will then proceed to be rolled normally.
As the attacker with the cruiser, you should be aware that the defender can pick either option with the subs.
That subs don’t block movement is a separate feature of submarines - another one of the several special rules that apply only to subs.
Mechs may be more useful to the Axis but it’s not exclusive by any means. Russia can make very good use of mechs if it gets the opportunity, and UK is often spamming as many as it can produce from its non-London ICs.
One could say the same for tanks as well, more useful to Axis than to the Allies. And other types of units have the reverse situation - if you decreased the cost of transports or carriers or fighters, the Allies would benefit far far more than Axis.
It’s just the nature of the board - Axis need to traverse land to achieve their objectives, Allies need to traverse water.
Suppose you halved the cost of Allied TT to 3 or 4 IPC.� Would that change the Allies to be more competitive where we wouldn’t need a bid?
Probably need to look at that equation in terms of what else the Allies are purchasing with those extra IPC. Since Allies will typically build 3-4 transports per round on average, it would be like giving them an extra bomber or carrier every round, which would probably be too much.
I would recommend that everyone concerned with the OOB balance favoring Axis too much give the Vichy Balance Mod a try. I found it to be a more competitive game than the regular setup.
It would be interesting to see if we could collect enough stats from games to come to some statistically significant conclusions about unit balance.
We of course already know that tacs and cruisers are almost never purchased. Even if tacs were the same cost as fighters, fighters would still be more useful, and cruisers would have to drop to a cost of 10 or get some inf transport capability to get purchased regularly.
Interestingly I rarely see tank purchases other than by Japan as well. For what was in earlier A&A games a stock unit purchased in bulk, it’s really faded. Now I see more fighters purchased, despite the higher cost.
Mechs may be more useful to the Axis but it’s not exclusive by any means. Russia can make very good use of mechs if it gets the opportunity, and UK is often spamming as many as it can produce from its non-London ICs.
One could say the same for tanks as well, more useful to Axis than to the Allies. And other types of units have the reverse situation - if you decreased the cost of transports or carriers or fighters, the Allies would benefit far far more than Axis.
It’s just the nature of the board - Axis need to traverse land to achieve their objectives, Allies need to traverse water.
Cheaper airbases and harbors would definitely make them more useful, not only for allies but for Japan also, which has reason to put them in at least a couple of places.
There’s a good argument for rebalancing the cost of units across the board, but of course it would have to be playtested extensively to make sure it was playable and enjoyable.
The basic argument for J1, specific moves aside, is that Japan starts the game with a ton of war potential from the initial units, but not much income, and not using that war potential to build income into the 60+ range ASAP is wasting it.
I tend to do J2 - you’ll find a thread from not long ago about my I2/J2 strategy - but I’m seeing the merits of J1 as well and don’t rule out doing it for some variety in my gameplay.
@Marshmallow:
Yes thank you for the reminder Marsh and Panther. If they retreat separate from the undestroyed amphibious units, the amphibious units are left entirely on their own.
Yep. That’s the kind of signal you don’t want to receive if you’re in those amphibious units…
Marsh
They should have gotten a clue when they got assigned to the 146th Fodder Division
What if an American tranny is in sz 110, Can British troops jump into Them and attack the same turn??!
nope, takes one turn to load and another to unload
if you have to load or unload go to the white zone
you’ll love it
it’s a way of life
If your opponent makes the mistake of taking a hit on an AC with no place to land the planes, retreating is a risk-free way of getting yourself free plane kills.
Ah never mind my previous comments, Kriegshund has it correct. There’s a special rule just for this scenario:
“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory
from an ally’s transport, but only on the turn of
the attacking land unit’s owner. All of the normal
requirements for transports offloading in a sea
zone must still be met by the attacking power (see
“Special Combat Movement, Transports”, page 16),
and any scrambled air units will prevent the landing
if they cannot be destroyed”
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf (page 21)
On page 16 it permits a scramble to resist amphibious attacks:
“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones”
There is no sea battle on ANZAC’s turn in that scenario, so there’s nothing to scramble against. You can’t scramble against an opponent’s fleet without a combat move into the adjacent SZ.
You can scramble against amphibious assaults however, whether there are combat units or not.
It’s not that there are no combat units; in the context of the ANZAC combat move, there are no units at all in the sea zone.
There is no sea battle on ANZAC’s turn in that scenario, so there’s nothing to scramble against. You can’t scramble against an opponent’s fleet without a combat move into the adjacent SZ.