same
AAG40 FAQ
-
Can Japan still build a minor IC on Kiangsu or does the “building ICs only on original territories” apply to both majors and minors?
-
@Trisdin:
Can Japan still build a minor IC on Kiangsu or does the “building ICs only on original territories” apply to both majors and minors?
Only applies to majors. Anyone can build a minor anywhere they controlled at the beginning of the turn that has an IPC value of 2 or more and is not an island (Australia is not an island) This would include on a territory that started the game as a neutral or even a true neutral.
-
Regarding Alpha 2 new scramble rules:
N. Italy has an Italian fighter and tac plus a German fighter. S. Italy has 1 Italian fighter and 2 German ones.
SZ95/97 is attacked by the UK1. How many Axis air units can scramble to defend the Italian fleet? 3? 6?I’m having my first game of Global tonight :)
-
There does not exist an airbase in North Italy. Therefore, no fighters may scramble from there on England 1 to defend.
If Italy later purchases an airbase for North Italy, any future attacks can be defended by both North and South Italy and each territory may send up to 3 defending aircraft (fighter/tactical) for a total of 6.
If you put an Airbase in N. Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece you will have 5 airbases defending that sea zone for a grand total of 15 defending axis aircraft + any located on carriers!
-
@Cmdr:
There does not exist an airbase in North Italy. Therefore, no fighters may scramble from there on England 1 to defend.
If Italy later purchases an airbase for North Italy, any future attacks can be defended by both North and South Italy and each territory may send up to 3 defending aircraft (fighter/tactical) for a total of 6.
If you put an Airbase in N. Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece you will have 5 airbases defending that sea zone for a grand total of 15 defending axis aircraft + any located on carriers!
Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I had on my mind that there was a 2nd airbase on N. Italy and forgot to recheck.
-
Say Russia has lost it’s capital and then captures Italy’s capital, what happens to Italy’s money? Does Russia get, Italy get to keep it, or does Uncle Obama claim it (i.e. nobody get’s it). What if Russia recaptures its capital the same turn it captures Italy’s capital.
-
The USSR gets Italy’s IPCs.
-
The USSR gets Italy’s IPCs.
Even if they have no capital? Can they use it if their capital is still captured?
-
@Emperor:
The USSR gets Italy’s IPCs.
Even if they have no capital? Can they use it if their capital is still captured?
No, they hang onto it in the event that their capital gets liberated.
-
I’m a bit confused with convoy raiding, playing with the option rule, only German subs count as dropping 3 ipcs? Are other subs 2ipcs and surface ships 1? Is there an ‘official’ option that ups convoy damage to 2 and 3? Also, what is the theory behind sub convoy disruption? Is it to deprive cash, or make subs more relevant?
BTW, for the record I really like the convoy idea, of representing merchant fleets, but why are there so many zones?
-
I’m a bit confused with convoy raiding, playing with the option rule, only German subs count as dropping 3 ipcs?
Exactly.
Are other subs 2ipcs and surface ships 1?
Yes. The optional rule just boosts Jerry’s U-boats to 3 and that’s all it does.
Is there an ‘official’ option that ups convoy damage to 2 and 3?
No. Do you have the rulebook? The rulebook has the optional rule for the German subs and that and tech are the only optional rules.
Also, what is the theory behind sub convoy disruption? Is it to deprive cash, or make subs more relevant?
I didn’t make the game, but doesn’t it add more strategic options? I don’t think subs need convoys to be more relevant. At 6 IPC’s they are the “infantry of the sea” and with their special abilities, they already have a powerful and significant niche. Double convoy damage makes them even more fun!! Oh, and I’m sure the rationale is simply that subs were much more effective at disrupting convoys (sinking ships that don’t even know they’re there!) and therefore do more damage. Also, do you know about how many actual vessels each unit in A&A represents? I mean, a sub unit represents a multitude of subs, while a battleship or carrier unit represents just a few. Which can disrupt more convoys, dozens of subs, or 2 battleships?
BTW, for the record I really like the convoy idea, of representing merchant fleets, but why are there so many zones?
Larry Harris is your man to ask. Go to his website and ask him. He doesn’t come here, but one of his top generals, Krieghund, might entertain your question.
-
BTW, for the record I really like the convoy idea, of representing merchant fleets, but why are there so many zones?
The number of zones represent the fact that shipping wasn’t safe anywhere. Subs prowled all over the globe looking for civilian shipping to sink to disrupt the flow of supplies, oil, and raw materials. Also, if zones were concentrated, it would be too easy to pick off the raiding ships.
-
I have a tricky one. Japan is surrounded for the last two turns by a UK aircraft carrier packed with fighter and tact and a US one with 3 transports.
On US turn, he arrived with 2 Battleships another carrier and 3 others transports for an amphibious assault on Tokyo. The Japan player decide to use all of his 6 kamikaze attacks on the Battleships and decide to scramble 3 fighters out of Japan.
Since the US player is attacking and has decided to throw all his planes on Japan, there is only the two battleships that can fight this fight and the two planes of UK.
Japan successfully sinked one battleship and damaged the other one and destroyed both of the UK’s planes on the same turn combined with the kamikazes and the US decided to retreat.
What happen to the 2 carriers that were already there and the transports? They were already there and are not part of the attack, do they still retreat? This is a confusing situation.
Thanks, I know it’s tough to understand but, thanks anyway!
-
The UK planes cannot attack, as it is not their turn. The US carriers, however, will participate in the battle and may be taken as casualties to keep the battleships alive. In fact, all US units in the sea zone, whether they were already there or just moved in, are automatically participants in the battle. If the US retreats, they must all leave.
-
Just to be sure, if the US retreat from this battle, every allied unit in the sea zone must leave it for a nearby one? Even if Japan is only defending with air units?
-
Just to be sure, if the US retreat from this battle, every allied unit in the sea zone must leave it for a nearby one? Even if Japan is only defending with air units?
No, only the US will retreat all US units. All UK units will stay put.
-
That q from mighty pol raised a few q’s of my own
1. If 3 US CC moves into z6 bordering Japan can Japanese ftrs scramble to defend the Zone?
2. (From Pol’s Q) if Japan defends the zone and US decides to Retreat can they stay in the same zone because there was no Jap units in it to start with?
3.If US CV’s have to retreat back a zone do they Uk ftrs get a chance to move to the CV’s or do they get sunk??? -
1. Only if the US is attacking.
2. No.
3. UK planes on the US carriers never leave them. They remain on board as cargo throughout the battle and retreat with the carriers. -
A further clarification on Mightypol’s situation. Since the Japanese ‘scramble’ aircraft are the one’s defending, the allied fighters and ships wouldn’t get to participate in the battle.
-
A further clarification on Mightypol’s situation. Since the Japanese ‘scramble’ aircraft are the one’s defending, the allied fighters and ships wouldn’t get to participate in the battle.
?? If the Japanese scramble aircraft, they are defending zone 6. Whoever’s turn it is (UK or US) would be fighting with all of its own naval and air units that are in zone 6.
Suggested Topics
