Regarding SZ 110, I got hosed one time on a UK scramble. Usually as Germany, I send 3 fighters, 3 Stukas, 1 bombers and sometimes 1 sub to SZ 110. Our UK player had gotten in the habit of not scrambling in order to save the RAF for future action.
Well, this one game I made the mistake of just assuming UK would not scramble. I sent 2 fighters, 2 Stukas and 1 bomber to SZ 110. The other fighter and Stuka I sent to kill the French fleet in SZ 93. Well, UK taught me a lesson. They scrambled and wiped out my planes. I didn’t even kill all the ships in the channel.
Never made that mistake again.
AAG40 FAQ
-
Can the Brits move troops into French Indochina if they are not yet at war with Japan?
-
Can the Brits move troops into French Indochina if they are not yet at war with Japan?
Yes, as neither France nor England are neutral (they just aren’t at war with Japan). However, even if Paris has fallen, control of the territory will not transfer to the UK.
If France was at war with Japan, but the UK was not, the UK could still move units in to IndoChina (as both UK and France are at war with Germany), provided it was still under French control.
Russia does have special rules for situations like this, though.
-
I’m sure this has been covered, but want to make sure. During a strategic bombing raid (or a bombing raid on a facility of any kind), can tactical bombers within the zone of the factory be used as interceptors?
We are currently playing Alpha 3.5 if that changes anything.
Thanks
-
I’m sure this has been covered, but want to make sure. During a strategic bombing raid (or a bombing raid on a facility of any kind), can tactical bombers within the zone of the factory be used as interceptors?
We are currently playing Alpha 3.5 if that changes anything.
Thanks
Nope. Tacs cannot intercept SBRs (but they can scramble for sea battles).
-
Alpha 3 question
Japan DOW russia, but does not take any territory adjacent to Mongolia.
Later in the game, Russia NCM some units in Kansu, controled by China and adjacent to Mongolia.
Japan attack Kan on the next turn (where russian units are), does it trigger the mongolian units ? Do they become russian as if they were friendly neutral units activated ?Thanks.
-
Alpha 3 question
Japan DOW russia, but does not take any territory adjacent to Mongolia.
Later in the game, Russia NCM some units in Kansu, controled by China and adjacent to Mongolia.
Japan attack Kan on the next turn (where russian units are), does it trigger the mongolian units ? Do they become russian as if they were friendly neutral units activated ?Thanks.
The rule says Russian controlled adjacent territory, not merely Russian units, so because the territory is Chinese controlled the rule would not apply.
-
Thanks
Yeah, my bad. Actually the wording is clear.
-
**Soviet/Japanese Non Aggression Pact: Due to their mutual border conflct with Japan in 1939, the Soviet Union and Mongolia have a special relationship. If the Japanese attack any Soviet territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory, all Mongolian territories (Olgiy, Dzavhan, Tsagaan-Olom, Central Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, and Buyant-Uhaa) that are still neutral are placed under the control of the Soviet Union at the end of the Japanese Combat Move phase, in the same manner as though the Soviet Union had moved land units into a friendly neutral territory. These territories have Soviet control markers placed on them, and their standing army units are placed on the board and are controlled by the Soviet Union player from then on. This occurs regardless of the state of relations between the Soviet Union and Japan at the time of the attack, with one exception: If the Soviet Union attacks any Japanese-controlled territory bordering these Mongolian territories while Mongolia is still neutral, Mongolia will remain neutral and not ally itself with the Soviet Union. In addition, the Mongolian territories will never become pro-Axis unless one or more of them is attacked by the Soviet Union.
Just want to point out, if Japan owned Kansu and Russia attacked it, then Mongolia would never join Russia either.**
-
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).
-
@Young:
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).
The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports. The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle. Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.
-
That would mean that a single submarine can block an amphibious assault from happening, which dosen’t seem accurate. If you are in fact correct, that would make this rule broken.
-
If you attack the cruiser, you attack the sub. � You can only ignore lone subs. � � The germans cannot make this amphibious assault as they have nothing that can hit the sub when they engage the cruiser. � But…They can sink the cruiser this turn and make the assault next turn as the carrier will allow the transport to ignore the sub.
To clarify, a lone transport(s) can freely ignore a sub for movement, but it cannot amphibiously assault if it is unescorted in the same seazone as an enemy sub. � If the transport has a warship escort with it, a lone enemy sub(s) can be ignored. � The escort must be from the same power that controls the transport (it is possible for a friendly warship from another power to already be in the seazone…it can’t help you with this)
An unescorted transport(s) CAN unload in the presence of an enemy subs during the NON-combat phase, however.
-
@Young:
That would mean that a single submarine can block an amphibious assault from happening, which dosen’t seem accurate. If you are in fact correct, that would make this rule broken.
It may not seem accurate, but it’s in the same line as one destroyer stopping a whole fleet from moving two spaces or from being able to do shore bombardment.
And yes, you could attack the cruiser and destroy it with the planes and then during non-combat your transports could ignore the remaining sub. However, also note that although the carrier has no attack value and the planes can’t hit subs, the sub can still hit the carrier, so it doesn’t make sense that you could keep it out of battle when it could do damage. But yes, once the cruiser is destroyed by the planes and the carrier is destroyed by the sub, only the planes and sub are left and the sub can still sink the transports.
-
Let me add one more bit of clarification. While defending transports are “auto-sunk” when they are alone, attacking transports do have the option to retreat at the end of any combat round.
-
OK than, so be it…. Thanks for the explanations.
-
@SAS:
@Young:
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently). Â
The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports. The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle. Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.
Incorrect. The attacking transports can retreat at any time they choose. So the Submarine might decide to engage, but it won’t necessarily kill all the attacking transports unless the attacking player is either unaware of the rules or fails to understand their importance.
-
You’re welcome. Â :-) Â What’s neat about the situation you presented is it gives the impression that the submarine blocked the German move, when in fact, the cruiser was the culprit. Â The sub alone, which the Germans can’t even hit with what they have, could not have stopped the move.
-
Ok, I’ve got a question now. I think I have just found a sleeze tactic. When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft. If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft. I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update
-
@Cmdr:
@SAS:
@Young:
Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).� �Â
The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports.� The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle.� Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.
Incorrect. The attacking transports can retreat at any time they choose. So the Submarine might decide to engage, but it won’t necessarily kill all the attacking transports unless the attacking player is either unaware of the rules or fails to understand their importance.
I covered that 2 posts pror to yours. :wink:
-
Ok, I’ve got a question now. I think I have just found a sleeze tactic. When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft. If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft. I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update
Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed. So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too. I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.
Suggested Topics
