Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
@panther
Thanks a lot for quick reply! So the movement restriction for US ships is only referring to adjacent ORIGINAL Japanese territories, right? -
No, it applies to all Japanese-controlled territories. However, New Zealand was not Japanese-controlled when the destroyer ended its movement there. It can remain there indefinitely, but if it moves away it may not return.
-
I’m playing a G40 game and have the following scenario that I would like a ruling on:
Japanese fleet (many ships + transports) in SZ19. On the US turn it non-combat moves a sub into SZ19.On the Japanese turn, for the combat phase I move away several ships + transports and a DD + planes sink the sub.
My opponent @sovietishcat believes I cannot move the transport out of the area unless it is actively involved in an amphibious assault that turn because that would be a non-combat move for the transport, and Triple-A does not accurately enforce that rule.
While I agree that the transport cannot move troops this turn because they would need to be off-loaded during non-combat, I do not see why I cannot move the transport out of the combat zone during the combat phase…which ends the transport’s movement for that turn. Avoiding combat is still a legal combat-phase move, right?
If @sovietishcat is right, does this “rule” apply to the combat ships as well? i.e., all the ships have to remain in SZ19 if I want to sink the sub, or if I want to move any of them, then the sub lives.
-
@surfer You are correct, and your opponent is incorrect.
-
@krieghund Thank you for the clarification and quick reply!!
-
@krieghund said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@surfer You are correct, and your opponent is incorrect.
I want to object and have it explained further.
The situation is this, that @surfer starts in a hostile sz and has to choose to either fight the Sub or ignore it and take Convoy dmg if the sz contains a convoy box.
However, the TT can’t load units unless it declares a Amphib assault elsewhere.
Since surfer did not amphib elsewhere, he can either:a.) Move out with the TT and as many Ships he want and combat the Sub w. the remaining Ships (as long as a DD is also present).
b.) Do Combat the Sub with all Ships and the TT, the TT move ends
c.) Move out w. TT, load Troops and come back and conduct amhip assault in that seazone or elsewhere
This is a so called Sub Hack. @sovietishcat and i perform this occasionally.
It is a mix from page 9&12 of the European Rulebook.Kriegshund, your call.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
The situation is this, that @surfer starts in a hostile sz
More specifically, it is not a hostile SZ because it contains no enemy surface warships.
Eur rules, p8: “Sea zones are either friendly or hostile. Friendly sea zones contain no surface warships (this doesn’t include
submarines and transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war. Hostile sea zones contain surface warships
belonging to a power with which you are at war.”Perhaps there needs to be errata issued then.
-
@simon33 yupp it does. Thank you for correcting my error.
Either way the sub hack is basically a decission to make on the opponent to attack or not attack the Sub i n this sz with the following effects on it- -
@simon33 @aequitas-et-veritas From the FAQ:
Q. If some of my units begin my turn in a sea zone with enemy submarines and/or transports and I decide to attack them, can I move some or all of my units out of the sea zone in combat movement to avoid having them participate in the combat?
A. Yes. Even though the sea zone is not hostile (it contains no enemy surface warships), you can still move units from the sea zone in combat movement to escape combat if you’re attacking there. However, you must still respect the rules for moving units in the Combat Move phase to escape combat. -
@krieghund good answer but only partially filled.
-
But then the tt cannot do anything else afterwards? Ie if I move my tt out of the sea zone, I cannot load it with units and lets say activate a Pro allies or pro axis territory.
-
or load units and leave the sea zone ( not doing a amphibious assault), because you are doing a non combat move in a combat move phase.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@krieghund good answer but only partially filled.
“Partially filled”?
-
@sovietishcat said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
But then the tt cannot do anything else afterwards? Ie if I move my tt out of the sea zone, I cannot load it with units and lets say activate a Pro allies or pro axis territory.
or load units and leave the sea zone ( not doing a amphibious assault), because you are doing a non combat move in a combat move phase.
No. The only way units may be loaded and/or offloaded during combat movement is for an amphibious assault.
-
@krieghund Thank you, this is what we have waited for.
Now it is filled! :grinning:
The Sub hack prevents the opponent from load and offloading accordingly and hinders it. Yes you can amphib and therefor load and off load, but you can’t use the involved TT for offloading normaly, and that is what this was all about.
-
Thank you Krieghund for your help and time!
-
I have another Global 1940 2E rule clarification question. This one may sound stupid. If you purchase a Minor IC at the beginning of a turn, then move one land unit into a friendly neutral territory that is worth 2ipcs, can you PLACE your newly purchased Minor IC on the “claimed” friendly neutral on the same turn?
I read a post on this forum dating back to 2013 which advocates germany purchasing a minor IC turn 1, moving an infantry into finland, and then placing that minor IC in finland. I dont think its a good idea, I just want to know if it is a legal move.
Another application (if this move is legal) would be ULK transporting a tank and infantry to friendly neutral greece, and placing a minor IC down in greece (same turn)Please advise.
-
@greyleaf2
From Eur rules, p23:
“Move the newly purchased units from the mobilization zone on the game board to eligible spaces you have controlled
since the start of your turn.”So since you would be putting the industrial complex on the board in the “Mobilize New Units” phase, you fail this test.
That was kind of hard to find.
-
In G40, if a defender has a sub And destroyer, the attacker has a Sub and some planes but no attacking destroyer, doesn’t the defending Sub with it’s First strike Fire first before the attacking Sub?
-
@nolimit I can’t see why it would go before the attacking sub.
Suggested Topics
