@SAS:
It would certainly help Japan out, and the US starts with a few mec that are annoying to try to move across the Atlantic when they can only go 1 at a time or paired with regular infantry. I like it.
I like it the way it is too
So you can move submarines in non-combat move into a zone with enemy destroyers, and there will be no combat. And the subs ARE allowed to move INTO a zone with enemy destroyers. Wow, I have never seen an opponent do this, so I wonder if most players are not aware of this.
I wasn’t aware… and wouldn’t understand it without this post. Thanks!
@SAS:
It would certainly help Japan out, and the US starts with a few mec that are annoying to try to move across the Atlantic when they can only go 1 at a time or paired with regular infantry. I like it.
I dont really think I would be trying to transport Mechs with Japan or America. America would have a higher chance of it, but I don’t think I would even then. Not unless I was already done with Japan and trying to get Africa or something.
@Cmdr:
@SAS:
It would certainly help Japan out, and the US starts with a few mec that are annoying to try to move across the Atlantic when they can only go 1 at a time or paired with regular infantry. I like it.
I dont really think I would be trying to transport Mechs with Japan or America. America would have a higher chance of it, but I don’t think I would even then. Not unless I was already done with Japan and trying to get Africa or something.
Hey, being able to transport 1 mec and 1 tank from Manchuria to FIC (or vice versa) in a single turn for each transport would be awesome. And yeah, it wouldn’t help America all that much, but it’d still be nice when trying to move into Africa.
So you can move submarines in non-combat move into a zone with enemy destroyers, and there will be no combat. And the subs ARE allowed to move INTO a zone with enemy destroyers. Wow, I have never seen an opponent do this, so I wonder if most players are not aware of this.
I wasn’t aware… and wouldn’t understand it without this post. Thanks!
We will be surprising the heck out of some future opponent who doesn’t read every post in this thread. :-D
By the way, this is apparently the same in AA50 (and Spring 1942). This is not a change - just one of the many subtleties “hidden” in the rules. Almost makes a guy want to read the whole book carefully, word for word again. Almost.
I suppose they could tow all their mechanized vehicles behind the transport. It doesn’t matter if salt water gets into engines right?
Isn’t there a limited amount of space on these ships? If they can fit 1 mech 1 arm then why not 2 arm units? Roughly the same number of men AND vehicles. Of course if there is a limited amount of space, then it might be best just to have 1 unit of inf to go with the heavier equipped units.
Used to house rule two units per transport period. Infantry, Artillery, Armor…whatever. Not much difference between a brigade of infantry and a couple companies of tanks, except, teh infantry probably weigh more and take up more room because of all the medical gear, the non-coms attached to the units, ammunition, equipment, rucksacks, duffles, fighting, intra-unit rivalries, officers needing their own zip code each because they refuse to share with enlisted, NCOs who want to throw the officers off the side and finish the war in half the time, etc, etc, etc.
Ok, here’s another suggestion for the errata. Sea zone 99 should NOT be a convoy zone. The only 2 ipc generating terrritories it touches (Greece and Syria) are both also connected to other convoy zones. So an enemy warship each in 98 and 99 could have Syria generating -1 ipc per turn for you. Add an enemy fleet to 97 and Greece will bring in another -2 for you. I think this seazone is the only example of this.
Ok, here’s another suggestion for the errata. Sea zone 99 should NOT be a convoy zone. The only 2 ipc generating terrritories it touches (Greece and Syria) are both also connected to other convoy zones. So an enemy warship each in 98 and 99 could have Syria generating -1 ipc per turn for you. Add an enemy fleet to 97 and Greece will bring in another -2 for you. I think this seazone is the only example of this.
i think the main reason this was done is bcuz that sz is the only convoy zone attached to turkey, and if someone wanted to invade that, then the 2 ipcs could be negated…. maybe not idk.
Ok, here’s another suggestion for the errata. Sea zone 99 should NOT be a convoy zone. The only 2 ipc generating terrritories it touches (Greece and Syria) are both also connected to other convoy zones. So an enemy warship each in 98 and 99 could have Syria generating -1 ipc per turn for you. Add an enemy fleet to 97 and Greece will bring in another -2 for you. I think this seazone is the only example of this.
Onekid is right about Turkey. It is a true neutral, but it could be generating income for Axis or Allies, and then the convoy would come into play for that territory as well.
You never get negative income from a territory. If you control Syria at the end of your turn and there are enemy warships in 98 and 99, you would only subtract 1 for Syria, thus negating its IPC generation. Read the bottom of page 22 - it is clear.
Ok, here’s another suggestion for the errata. Sea zone 99 should NOT be a convoy zone. The only 2 ipc generating terrritories it touches (Greece and Syria) are both also connected to other convoy zones. So an enemy warship each in 98 and 99 could have Syria generating -1 ipc per turn for you. Add an enemy fleet to 97 and Greece will bring in another -2 for you. I think this seazone is the only example of this.
Onekid is right about Turkey. It is a true neutral, but it could be generating income for Axis or Allies, and then the convoy would come into play for that territory as well.
You never get negative income from a territory. If you control Syria at the end of your turn and there are enemy warships in 98 and 99, you would only subtract 1 for Syria, thus negating its IPC generation. Read the bottom of page 22 - it is clear.
“Each disrupted convoy can’t lose more IPCs than the total value of controlled territories or islands adjacent to the sea zone” from 22. It’s says per convoy zone, nothing about territories not being dinged in more than one zone. The keyword is each, so each convoy is calculated individually. I even asked Krieghund a while ago. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer you were correct.
Edit: Doubled a sentence
Moralecheck is correct. This will be addressed in Alpha+.3.
“Each disrupted convoy can’t lose more IPCs than the total value of controlled territories or islands adjacent to the sea zone” from 22. It’s says per convoy zone, nothing about territories not being dinged in more than one zone. The keyword is each, so each convoy is calculated individually. I even asked Krieghund a while ago. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer you were correct.
True. Thanks.
“Each disrupted convoy can’t lose more IPCs than the total value of controlled territories or islands adjacent to the sea zone” from 22. It’s says per convoy zone, nothing about territories not being dinged in more than one zone. The keyword is each, so each convoy is calculated individually. I even asked Krieghund a while ago. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer you were correct.
True. Thanks.
But wouldnt it be fun to have 32 Submarines in SZ 101 and CRD the US twice over? I am not saying that it SHOULD be allowed, I am just saying it would be fun!
@Cmdr:
“Each disrupted convoy can’t lose more IPCs than the total value of controlled territories or islands adjacent to the sea zone” from 22. It’s says per convoy zone, nothing about territories not being dinged in more than one zone. The keyword is each, so each convoy is calculated individually. I even asked Krieghund a while ago. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer you were correct.
True. Thanks.
no, this isnt the case. i believe that in cases of places like scotland, where it connects to 2 convoy zones, that the income can be taken twice.
But wouldnt it be fun to have 32 Submarines in SZ 101 and CRD the US twice over? I am not saying that it SHOULD be allowed, I am just saying it would be fun!
oh, that didnt work like it was supposed to. oh well.
I’ve gone back and forth on Subs attacks on captial ships with no destroyers present.
No destroyers present… subs get to hit without retaliation?
I saw that on step two casulties go to the casualty strip. step 4 all casualties return fire.
however during step 3 it says all units are removed from the gameboard. Which leads me to believe that subs hit (no destoryers present) and then the ships go to the casualtiy board, but are removed from the game before step 4 takes place. thus No sub retaliation shots without a destroyer.
Wanted an official blessing of this one. Thanks.
I’ve gone back and forth on Subs attacks on captial ships with no destroyers present.
No destroyers present… subs get to hit without retaliation?
I saw that on step two casulties go to the casualty strip. step 4 all casualties return fire.
however during step 3 it says all units are removed from the gameboard. Which leads me to believe that subs hit (no destoryers present) and then the ships go to the casualtiy board, but are removed from the game before step 4 takes place. thus No sub retaliation shots without a destroyer.
Wanted an official blessing of this one. Thanks.
If there are no destroyers present, subs perform according to their “surprise strike” ability.
If they achieve a hit and it destroys the ship, the ship is effectively removed immediately. Such a ship does not fire during the defenders round and is not placed on the casualty strip. If the sub only damages a ship (the battleship or carrier, hit but not fully destroyed by the subs), those ships still return fire during the defenders round of rolls. The sub cannot submerge after firing - it can only submerge before firing during a round of battle. So if your sub doesn’t manage to clear the BBs, CVs, etc, they will be fired upon, after which they can submerge or continue to fire.
Ok, I’m new to these forums, but I’ve been a long time A&A player. One thing that is really confusing me about the Global Rules is this. What is Russia’s starting income? We use the alpha .2 rules (with some special adjustments).
In the Pacific game there are a few USSR territories that the Europe USSR doesn’t account for. I’m sure others have asked this, but I didn’t feel like rummaging through 100+ pages. Thank you for the help!
37. Also note that Russia only recieves 2 infantry units in Novosibirsk per turn in AAE, not in Global.
