Attacking Japan w/ a naval battle first...aircraft question.
-
Scenario:
I was Japan. My navy was running low. US was amassing ships and bombers in and around Alaska…well in range of Japan.
I needed to hold them off from attacking the Island of Japan with a ton of bombers for one more turn so I could fortify with 8 fresh infantry.
I split my navy up and surrounded Japan in both sea zones with the idea that US bombers could not skip the sea battle for whichever sea zone they chose to enter and bomb Japan (non SBR).
The US player thought they could just skip the sea battle and save the bombers for a remaining amphibious assault on Japan after the naval battle was resolved. I contend that they cannot because of the sea combat that had to take place and the bombers had to be involved in it. (Note that I had a battleship in each sea zone, so it’s not like it was transports or subs.)
Verdict??
-
Bombers that moved to the hostile seazone during Combat Move Phase are part of the sea-battle. Once the sea-battle ended they cannot be part of another battle during the same turn.
Bombers that moved to the hostile territory (Japan) during Combat Move Phase of course are not part of any sea battle.
@minicop said in Attacking Japan w/ a naval battle first...aircraft question.:
I split my navy up and surrounded Japan in both sea zones with the idea that US bombers could not skip the sea battle for whichever sea zone they chose to enter and bomb Japan (non SBR).
As said above, the bombers can end their combat moves in Japan (provided they have a valid landing space).
Welcome to the forum :slightly_smiling_face:
-
@minicop Per page 11 of the Rulebook, “Air units can move through a hostile space as if it was friendly.” This means that they may move through enemy units without stopping, even if combat will occur in that space.
-
Thanks everyone. I need to go tell my son about this and apologize ;) But, now that I realize you can’t sacrifice air units like in the '86 version, a bombing run from Alaska wouldn’t work anyway due to distance.
-
@minicop said in Attacking Japan w/ a naval battle first...aircraft question.:
Thanks everyone. I need to go tell my son about this and apologize ;) But, now that I realize you can’t sacrifice air units like in the '86 version, a bombing run from Alaska wouldn’t work anyway due to distance.
You cannot sacrifice air units in that version either. Aircraft may only make attacks where they have a safe landing zone.
Page 14 of the Axis and Allies manual (aka Classic)
-
BTW 2nd Edition came out in 1984, not 1986.
-
@andrewaagamer Actually, the 1st edition of Classic came out in 1984, and the 2nd edition came out in 1986. :grin:
-
You sure? I certainly have been saying 1984 for years and Wikipedia also states 1984. Though I do realize you can’t trust Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia:
Axis & Allies is a series of World War II strategy board games. The first version was initially published in 1981 and a second edition known colloquially as Axis & Allies: Classic was published in 1984. -
Huh, you are right. Just found this on axisallies.com. Learn something new everyday.
The initial release of Axis & Allies, under a different manufacturer, occurred in 1981. The ‘Classic’ version was released in 1984 and has retroactively been referred to by the ‘Classic’ moniker. Many sources also reference a 1986 release referred to as ‘2nd Edition’. Some of the files below will be of the ‘2nd Edition’.
-
You know, for years, I have referred to the original Axis and Allies as either Classic or Second Edition. But apparently that technically refers to two different versions. Classic being First Edition and 2nd Edition being, well, 2nd Edition.
Cool stuff.
-
@andrewaagamer Yes, I have both editions, which I bought when they first came out.
It’s a common mistake to refer to Classic as simply “2nd edition”. For many years, it became shorthand to refer to it as such, which was OK at the time because it was the only 2nd edition. However, in later years it’s become quite confusing, as there have now been 2nd editions of multiple A&A games. Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and the confusion is perpetuated, in many cases by people who are unaware of the history and are simply repeating what they’ve heard (e.g., Wikipedia).
To add to the confusion, over time people forgot about the existence of the Classic 1st edition altogether, which led to the misconception that the “2nd edition” moniker referred to Classic being the 2nd edition of the 1981 (Nova Games) version, which in turn led to Revised being called by some people “3rd edition”, etc. This was all quite confusing, since there was eventually a 3rd (computer) edition of Classic, which was also not widely known.
As a result of all of this, it’s safest to avoid all confusion by referring to the MB version as simply “Classic”. However, there will always still be those who will continue the old habits…
-
Gotcha! From now on Original Axis and Allies will only be referred to as “Classic” by me.
BTW I have that Axis and Allies 3rd Edition computer game with the 3rd Edition Rules for Classic. Great for playing against yourself and trying out strategies. Not the against the AI, the AI sucked and did really stupid things.
And speaking of 3rd Edition Rules I seem to remember getting a flyer with an update of 3rd Edition rules, long before the computer game came out. I looked in my box though and they are not there. Am I dreaming?
-
@andrewaagamer You may be thinking of the Rules Clarifications document for the 2nd edition that came out in 1991.
-
Yeah, I have got that. I thought this was like a 1 two-sided page document max. Must be dreaming.
-
@andrewaagamer I have not heard of such a document, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Suggested Topics
