Posts made by Xandax

@Veqryn:

@Xandax:

Seeing as bases don’t normally limit the number of territories being targetable - I can’t see it should/would for paratroopers (despite being a tech enhancement).
It would be a strange requirenment that all units exiting from one territory to be fixed on attacking the same territory.

It would also make no logical sense to limit in that manner if viewing from a military strategical viewpoint. Paratroopers are shipped by airplanes. Airplanes can launch from one location and fly in what direction they choose. There’s just not a transport airplane piece in the game, but it’s ‘built in’ to the tech.
It would be like loading two transporters in one base and forcing them to move to the same seazone because of the base if such a restriction existed.

You can rationalize either choice in any number of ways.  All of the rules for A&A end up being rationalized, even if you could also rationalize the exact opposite rules.

I don’t really care which rule is chosen.  I only assumed 1 destination because the rules appear to say only 1 destination.  Also, this is not an “aircraft” like a bomber or fighter, this is a single airbase.  Perhaps it makes sense that such a huge undertaking as a Airborne Paratrooper operation would require that each airbase only have 1 target.  That could make sense to me.  It at least makes just as much sense as requiring that the destination already have a land or amphibious attack under way.

It’s not ‘one airbase’ - it’s one infantry unit you move. So in that respect - I’d say it is like ‘an aircraft’.

Seeing as bases don’t normally limit the number of territories being targetable - I can’t see it should/would for paratroopers (despite being a tech enhancement).
It would be a strange requirenment that all units exiting from one territory to be fixed on attacking the same territory.

It would also make no logical sense to limit in that manner if viewing from a military strategical viewpoint. Paratroopers are shipped by airplanes. Airplanes can launch from one location and fly in what direction they choose. There’s just not a transport airplane piece in the game, but it’s ‘built in’ to the tech.
It would be like loading two transporters in one base and forcing them to move to the same seazone because of the base if such a restriction existed.

@Cow:

mechanized infantry have a movement of 2.

They can blitz with a tank, but otherwise move two spaces over friendly territories.
~

Never said russia activates iraq. I said you take it with russia. using either 4 mech units or 2 mech and the 2 persians. use air to assist.
~

I have has so much more success as allies doing this. +5 +4 +3 = 12 income everyturn. you get cash back so fast. then after you kill the tobruk force with a bunch of air… bling bling +7 more. does require russia to part with at least 2-4 mech depending on who you want to give persia to.

Such a good investment.

Yes, it can blitz with a tank, but you said:
well 1 russian mech could go to egypt and then blitz down
It can’t do that, then you’ll need to dedicate a tank with it.

And no, you didn’t’ say activate Iraq - but the person I quoted did.

@Vance:

If UK activates North Persia, then Russia can activate Iraq with 2 mech right after the German DOW and get an extra $5.  On the next turn they can move into Egypt.  If Italy is sulking instead of attacking Egypt, the Russians will get Tobruk ($3) and Ethiopia ($4).  Turn after that it will be Libya ($4) and Italian Somaliland ($3).  That’s $19.  Can anyone seriously think they can win as the axis with Russia earning that?  Italy MUST prevent this; they can’t just play defense in Northern Italy.  If they fight the battle of attrition with UK over Egypt it will drain UK’s resources as well as their own, but prevent USSR getting anywhere near those NOs.

Russia can’t activate Iraq - Iraq is Pro-axis isn’t it?
You can attack Iraq, defeat the force, and capture it. Meaning you properly have to dedicate more than two Mech. Infs for that.

@Cow:

well 1 russian mech could go to egypt and then blitz down… it just takes a few turns longer. I do this all the time, because I like russian income. those units tend to come back in time for action as well.

A Mech Inf can’t blitz on its own.

@Kreuzfeld:

@Xandax:

@Cow:

here. You get +2 for persia, then +5 from Iraq right after.

There is more…

And to take Iraq, you need to attack so you’ll have to dedicate some units that can punch through the inf defence - so where that ‘+5’ you mentions comes from I don’t know. (If it isn’t flipped by Axis already).
Plus you can’t take them until Russia is at war and it takes you two turns after the war declaration to get to Persia unless Britain (or somebody else) have flipped East Persia (or NW Persia).

And if you get a mech inf into Italian Somali land, I wonder what Italy is doing and whether or not it isn’t also something that Britain needs to capture if free.

I don’t think you completely understood. the “trick” is to  have uk take east persia, that way USSR can take persia the turn they go to war, with a mech and a panzer.

the advantage of that is that now you have 1 mech, 1 arm, 3 inf, and possibly 1 tac for an attack on iraq. with the, so that is + 5 (+2 for the terr,l + 3 for the NO since iraq is pro axis, they don’t need to be aligned by italy for this)

when you already have the ussr mech in iraq, you are 3 moves, or one trainne move away from italian somali land, which is a 0 income terr, but the USSR gets the NO for it too. so combine it all and USSR can get 10 EXTRA income from about round 5.

why UK would take italian somaliland when USSR is in position to take it is beyond me. (assuming the italians have not placed alot of troops there ofc)

Hence I said - it’s a two move for Russia unless NE or NW is flipped and if flipped by Britain - I’d say Britain is in a better position.
And now I see what is meant with the +5 including the NO.

And for why UK should take Italian Somaliland - well - it’s on the route up from South Africa. A single Russian mech inf. or similar would require the transporter to stay in place, require the transporter to be defended, tie up a Russian defensive unit worth 4 - it’s a lot of tactical movements and potential investments for a single point of IPC.
I’d say let Britain go for that point of production if at all.

I’ve often played around with Russian strategies having them push down through Middle East to tie up with Britain however, it’s not an ‘income’ trick. It’s a destroy Italy hard ‘trick’.

The income for Persia seems much better spend on Britain IMO as it can be done faster with them and still opens up a Russian route towards Iraq.

@Cow:

here. You get +2 for persia, then +5 from Iraq right after.

There is more…

I’d rather take Persia with Britain.
And to take Iraq, you need to attack so you’ll have to dedicate some units that can punch through the inf defence - so where that ‘+5’ you mentions comes from I don’t know. (If it isn’t flipped by Axis already).
Plus you can’t take them until Russia is at war and it takes you two turns after the war declaration to get to Persia unless Britain (or somebody else) have flipped East Persia (or NW Persia).

And if you get a mech inf into Italian Somali land, I wonder what Italy is doing and whether or not it isn’t also something that Britain needs to capture if free.

@creeping-deth87:

I’m surprised there isn’t a more definitive answer. I CAN’T be the first person to think of doing this.

I’m not seeing anything in the rules that would disallow it. A carrier is a valid landing space for any fighter or tac bomber, the rules don’t mention ensuring sufficient capacity for landings.

It is pretty much definitive. It says you can’t send them on suicide missions (or some wording akin to that).

As the others have mentioned. You need to have a potential landing spot to send aircraft to fight. If only having 2 potential landing spots (assuming perfect rolls), you can only dedicate two air planes.

My main issue with OOB is the inability to hinder the US income in most any plausible scenario which becomes a factor when USA enters the war.
Giving any significant bid to the Axis would tip the scales too quickly in the early game, and allow them to rush Russia (for example) too fast.

I play mostly OOB as well, simply because the Alpha rules IMO changed fast and kept being in some inconsistent state, so things kept changing. Then it was easier to deal with the hardship and try to beat the odds in OOB IMO. :D

People do it because the defence die of 1 is much less than the 2, 3 and 4s you’d otherwise be faced with
Therefore the less ‘IPC’ gain compared to taking out units with your bombers is offset by the lower risk to them as well.

Therefore you can hit the enemy even while the front is moving.

@Little_Boot:

Make sure to keep enough pressure on China to keep it back. Most importantly, hold Yunnan. China seems weak but it can become quite pesky if not subdued. Also, two of your victory cities are in China.

If crushing India via naval power and transporters, it’s possible to ignore China pretty much as they can’t move outside their own territories.
Then you can mob up China afterwards if needed.

So far I’ve mainly been an OOB player.

I use cruisers; for me it’s a nice supremacy unit, least of all to support bombardment.

Sure - you can always put up theorycrafted scenarios where in each individual situation the cruiser will be ‘voted off the island’. (Oh, but if you attack with 20 destroyers it’ll be better to have ….)
But combine all the hypothetical scenarios and you have a versatile unit in the cruiser with both decent offence, defence and the bombardment ability. 
As with everything, it’s a matter of situation, but cruisers are always a mainstay in any navy I build in in AA. The number of them changes, but I have cruisers.

Seems more like some people don’t want to believe it’s possible; hence strange and biased poll choices, dogmatic blanket statements and inability to think outside the box.

@mantlefan:

In pacific marines paired with arty on amphibs attacked at 3 I believe.

Heh - as good as a tank. Silly.

And no - I don’t want them. If we start doing stuff like this - we open the door for different units of each type for each nation. And while fun in theory - I don’t think it would be all that fun in a game.
House Rule them if you want them.

IMO - Italy’s main disadvantage is the starting IPC. They really do have a lot to do, but with the starting IPC - they’re at an disadvantage and relies heavily on Germany strategy for what to do.
But if punching a hole in Africa and perhaps the Middle East - they can become a real powerhouse, exactly because Allies might also underestimate them as well and focus more on Germany/Japan.

Larger maps would be nice - yes, even if that means I can no longer fit it on my table. Larger maps provide more chance for strategy.
Also - Key cities being it’s own square fits into the larger map thingy.
Also - all other things equal - I’d like to see some larger focus on splitting the US income  :evil:

What I’d really like to see ….  :evil:  :evil: … is differentiated firepower, purchasing and so on. So - USSR can buy cheap infantry, but the infantry is lesser quality. Germany’s tanks are more expensive, but also better.
Basically - started playing for example Tides of Iron. A mixture of such a game and A&A … yum. I want. :o

Your chance with a KJF is that it might buy Germany enough time to win the game.
I think in your case, your KJF might have been going on too long, meaning you didn’t just try to contain Japan before the USA shifted focus to Europe. Remember, you do not need to beat Japan into a pulp for a KJF to “work”.

Cool table indeed - I would want one, but am all thumbs (heck - even got somebody else working on dice towers for me, cause I can only hurt myself with tools, not actually build anything).

But you really need to pain that room  :evil: :D

@knp7765:

I have a question about shore bombardment:  Do the bombarding warships have to be in the SAME sea zone as the transports in an amphibious assault?  OR, can they be in another sea zone that borders the territory being amphibiously assaulted?
In a game we were playing, Germany had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 115.  Germany had 2 transports that carried inf & art from Finland to Novgorod in SZ 127.  Both SZ 115 and SZ 127 are adjacent to Novgorod.
Later in the same game, UK had 1 BB and 1 CA in SZ 98 with transports landing forces from SZ 81 (the Red Sea) to attack Egypt.

Since in both cases, both sea zones bordered the territory in question, can the warships bombard that territory to support the landing troops?  Or do the warships have to be in the same sea zone?  I think it is the latter but I wanted to check for sure.

If they’re in another zone from which landing takes place, they’re not part of the amphibious assault and they can’t bombard.