Question Krieg, If you obtain radar, do the benefits transfer over to the air defense of ICs and bases as well, or just the actual AA pieces? In other words, if I’m being strategically bombed, and I have radar, does my anti aircraft hit on a 2? I don’t have the rulebook since it’s a friends game, so that’s why I ask.
From page #37:
4. Radar. Your antiaircraft fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1.I know you didn’t have the rulebook, so there it is. Radar improves ALL antiaircraft fire immediately. It’s freaking awesome.
Interestingly, this was the first question that popped into my head after reading the rule book, and I would beg to differ.
p.37 under radar doesn’t say: “Your antiaircraft fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1” as you quoted, it says “Your antiaircraft [GUN] fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1”.
As the AA [GUN] is now a specific piece designed to defend military ground units from air attack rather than a general territory defender, and facilities are listed as having “self-defense antiaircraft ability” rather than “anti-aircraft gun” I think it is open to debate on facility AA hitting on a 1 or 2 with Radar.
Stratigic bombing is already pretty marginal given facility automatic AA fire plus intercepters, a nation that develops Radar would become functionally immune to raiding. I would argue against granting facility AA radar bonus myself.
@PGMatt:
Question Krieg, If you obtain radar, do the benefits transfer over to the air defense of ICs and bases as well, or just the actual AA pieces? In other words, if I’m being strategically bombed, and I have radar, does my anti aircraft hit on a 2? I don’t have the rulebook since it’s a friends game, so that’s why I ask.
From page #37:
4. Radar. Your antiaircraft fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1.I know you didn’t have the rulebook, so there it is. Radar improves ALL antiaircraft fire immediately. It’s freaking awesome.
Interestingly, this was the first question that popped into my head after reading the rule book, and I would beg to differ.
p.37 under radar doesn’t say: “Your antiaircraft fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1” as you quoted, it says “Your antiaircraft [GUN] fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1”.
As the AA [GUN] is now a specific piece designed to defend military ground units from air attack rather than a general territory defender, and facilities are listed as having “self-defense antiaircraft ability” rather than “anti-aircraft gun” I think it is open to debate on facility AA hitting on a 1 or 2 with Radar.
Stratigic bombing is already pretty marginal given facility automatic AA fire plus intercepters, a nation that develops Radar would become functionally immune to raiding. I would argue against granting facility AA radar bonus myself.
That’s all well and good, but you’re wrong. Krieghund said Radar boosts all facilities as well as AA guns. End of story. House rule it all you want, but that’s not the OOB rule.
It applies to facilities as well. This will be in the FAQ.
@PGMatt:
p.37 under radar doesn’t say: “Your antiaircraft fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1” as you quoted, it says “Your antiaircraft [GUN] fire now hits on a 1 or 2 instead of just a 1”.
As the AA [GUN] is now a specific piece designed to defend military ground units from air attack rather than a general territory defender, and facilities are listed as having “self-defense antiaircraft ability” rather than “anti-aircraft gun” I think it is open to debate on facility AA hitting on a 1 or 2 with Radar.
Stratigic bombing is already pretty marginal given facility automatic AA fire plus intercepters, a nation that develops Radar would become functionally immune to raiding. I would argue against granting facility AA radar bonus myself.
So you’re saying radar shouldn’t help one iota vs. SBR’s? That would be even worse. Why would a power be just as vulnerable to raiding bombers before and after getting radar??
So you’re saying radar shouldn’t help one iota vs. SBR’s? That would be even worse. Why would a power be just as vulnerable to raiding bombers before and after getting radar??
I would be OK with it myself, yes. I’m not talking about the rational of it, I’m talking about the mechanics. Right now, bombing is a marginal attack. It can swing any given game, but on the average over the extended life of Axis and Allies it works out to be just worth it for the the attacker. I feel that Heavy Bombers was the tech counter to Radar, but given it’s current incarnation, isn’t good enough. Even if I had heavies I wouldn’t fly them into a Radar protected facility. To answer your Why? then, when a technology effectively eliminates an option to the foe, and the OOB text can be interpreted in what I feel is a logical way that maintains the current slightly-worth-it position of bombing, do you need another reason?
Now, if the game Q & A guy says no, you’re splitting hairs and Radar upgrades all AA fire and that this will be in an errata to the OOB rules, then you are correct in saying that my interpretation will stand as a house rule. I read the FAQ posted here and I didn’t see, " Krieghund said Radar boosts all facilities as well as AA guns", but given the 35+ number of pages, I accept I could have missed it. I am going to happly play with Radar upgrading facilities, based on Krieghunds comment, “It applies to facilities as well. This will be in the FAQ” It’s a much cleaner rule this way, and alot of Axis rules are deliberately clean.
Just call me blind, but can anyone tell me where in the rules of 1940 Global/Pacific/Europe is stated when subs do emerge again after they’ve submerged?
In the old Pacific and Europe and Revised it’s clearly stated. It’s rather important to know and not to assume when they emerge with the convoy-disruption rules in place.
At the moment we assume they emerge before convoy-disruption right after non-combat movement.
Thanks in advance and kind regards,
K’68
Just call me blind, but can anyone tell me where in the rules of 1940 Global/Pacific/Europe is stated when subs do emerge again after they’ve submerged?
In the old Pacific and Europe and Revised it’s clearly stated. It’s rather important to know and not to assume when they emerge with the convoy-disruption rules in place.
At the moment we assume they emerge before convoy-disruption right after non-combat movement.
Thanks in advance and kind regards,
K’68
Page 18, AAEurope1940 rulebook, right column, second paragraph below the section: “Step 2: Submarine Surprise Strike or Submerge (Sea Battles Only)”. “Attacking or defending submarines that choose to submerge are removed from the battle strip immediately and placed on the game board in the contested sea zone, removing them from the remaining battle sequence.”
This means that “submerging” simply takes the sub out of combat and places it back on the game board. Subs don’t actually stay “submerged”, it is just an option to leave combat when the enemy has no destroyers to force you to stay.
See also page 29 for the submarine unit description.
This is different from the old versions of the game. This is also not an official answer. Hope it helps.
Just call me blind, but can anyone tell me where in the rules of 1940 Global/Pacific/Europe is stated when subs do emerge again after they’ve submerged?
In the old Pacific and Europe and Revised it’s clearly stated. It’s rather important to know and not to assume when they emerge with the convoy-disruption rules in place.
At the moment we assume they emerge before convoy-disruption right after non-combat movement.
Thanks in advance and kind regards,
K’68
Page 18, AAEurope1940 rulebook, right column, second paragraph below the section: “Step 2: Submarine Surprise Strike or Submerge (Sea Battles Only)”. “Attacking or defending submarines that choose to submerge are removed from the battle strip immediately and placed on the game board in the contested sea zone, removing them from the remaining battle sequence.”
This means that “submerging” simply takes the sub out of combat and places it back on the game board. Subs don’t actually stay “submerged”, it is just an option to leave combat when the enemy has no destroyers to force you to stay.
See also page 29 for the submarine unit description.
This is different from the old versions of the game. This is also not an official answer. Hope it helps.
Ah, that explains it a little better now, thanks! I was looking in the turn sequence for it. It’s always difficult when you are reading the rules in a foreign language. We are going into our first official match with others this weekend and want to be fully prepped against any form of loopholes in the rules.
Been playing A&A for 24 years now and must say: the rulebooks -unfortunately- don’t get any more transparent with each new release. (Don’t get me wrong, We really love the new global over here and are faithful buyers of each new release. thanks for all those nice hours of gaming fun Larry!)
We are going into our first official match with others this weekend and want to be fully prepped against any form of loopholes in the rules.
Fun, fun.
Been playing A&A for 24 years now and must say: the rulebooks -unfortunately- don’t get any more transparent with each new release. (Don’t get me wrong, We really love the new global over here and are faithful buyers of each new release. thanks for all those nice hours of gaming fun Larry!)
:-) Dittos!
Question on Russia. I read the global political situation and it says USSR cannot wage war against a European force until the 4th turn. It would seem that they can declare war on Japan anytime they wish then, is that correct?
Yes.
Question on Russia. I read the global political situation and it says USSR cannot wage war against a European force until the 4th turn. It would seem that they can declare war on Japan anytime they wish then, is that correct?
They can declare war on Germany and Italy as soon as Italy or Germany declares war on Russia. Thus, Russia could declare war on Germany on R1 if attacked on G1.
Yes, but the transports would not be automatically sunk. Since they can retreat, they are not defenseless. The fighter would get one shot against the transports before they could retreat. Of course, if they choose not to retreat, the fighter will sink them all eventually. Either way, there will be no amphibious assault.
I have a question along similar lines. The last game that I played my opponent tried an amphibious assault that required us to resolve the naval battle before but he was unsuccessful in sinking all of the defending ships, because of unlucky or lucky dice rolls depending upon how you look at it. We were wondering if the transport is immediately sunk or if it can retreat? And if it can retreat can does it get fired upon before? I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this arise before in all of the games of AA50 and AA40 that we’ve played… We had the transport just get sunk, but in hindsight I think he should have been able to retreat it.
When the attacking warships and/or planes are all destroyed, any remaining defender hits are applied to the transports. At the end of the round, the surviving transports can retreat normally. If for some reason they can’t retreat, they are destroyed.
Thank you!
Can a single unit kill unlimited numbers of unprotected transports?
Yes. Think of it as attacking the transports and rolling to hit for round after round until they are all sunk.
This is new to me.
So if a Transport is alone in a sea zone, and a ship or fighter comes in. Attack rolls and misses, the transport can retreat and end the sea zone combat? I always thought it was an auto kill, did no know about the retreat option.
Only the attacker got the option to retreat.
Yes, so transports can retreat when they are with an attack force.
