Can you build a naval base on a territory that does NOT touch water?

[Krieghund]

No.  See page 24 of the Rulebook.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Congrats: you have found an actual use for building a naval base inland.

[Gargantua]

Airbase will do,

Minor would have been cheaper, but can’t be built on a 1 IPC territory.  And you don’t want to give up a factory close to your capital.

I almost asked if AA guns could be built like facilities anywhere… because I didn’t see it specified in the rules…

[Krieghund]

@Gargantua:

I almost asked if AA guns could be built like facilities anywhere… because I didn’t see it specified in the rules…

Also on page 24.

[knp7765]

AA guns have to be built in ICs like other units.  However, since Russia (Moscow) starts with an AA gun, you could just move that one to Vologda to halt the German blitz and give Russia another turn to build defenses.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@knp7765:

AA guns have to be built in ICs like other units.  However, since Russia (Moscow) starts with an AA gun, you could just move that one to Vologda to halt the German blitz and give Russia another turn to build defenses.

That AA gun may have been moved to the front and captured by the Germans.

[Gargantua]

The AA Gun, was also in the south west.

[knp7765]

Oh, I didn’t realize you had moved your AA Gun from Russia.  I’ve noticed that a lot of you other players seem to move your AA guns around a lot.  This seems strange to me.  Me and the people I play with almost never move our AA guns.  In fact, we rarely even purchase new ones, although with Larry Harris new rule on Alpha+1, we may be reassessing that practice.

One rare occasion that one of us does move them around is when someone gets the Rockets tech.  Then, of course, we will move an AA gun to be closer to an enemy’s IC in order to blast it.  Not one of the best techs, but it does make a nice addition to SBRs or even a nice little substitute if you run out of bombers.

[cts17]

AA guns are very nice to have with your infantry armies to discourage any air attacks on your forces. Keeping them in the front forces planes to go around them as well, and if you have a few of them… they can form a wall that many players will opt not to force through, even for SBR and the likes.

[Gargantua]

Factories now have thier OWN aa guns built in, so there is no sense in leaving an aa gun sitting around in your capital anymore, because you already have protection against Strategic Bombing Raids.

aa guns, DRAMATICALLY discourage air attacks against ground units, and 1 hit from an aa gun, pays for double it’s IPC worth.

A good axis and allies player, will use every single unit on the board to his maximum advantage.  Moving your aa guns around, to provide you protection against air-attacks, allowing you the ability to stop blitz’s when desperate, and supplementing your army is critical and beneficial.  Especially considering how many more aircraft there are in Global, as compared to Anniversary, or any other axis and allies version.

Just imagine for example, the implications - of having an aa gun in China,  it can make an astronomical difference.  No one likes risking planes for limited attacks…  That, or even moving an aa gun from West US where most times it is uselss, to Hawaii to help in the defence of the victory city there, enough so to allow the Americans to hold the victory city, in the event of a determined attack.

That said, the same theory lays true, for using other types of units on the board for maximum advantage.  For example, getting infantry off islands in the middle of nowhere,  or off the mainland countries like the U.S. where they will never see action. And putting them into harms way where they face off against the enemy, instead of building new units of the same type back home, can really top out your countries effectiveness and total potential overall.

The whole game is a series of moving targets and oppurtunites, measured by logistical ability.  A unit that is never moved, or used, for all intensive purposes might aswell not exsist.  Put 30 Japanese battleships off the coast of Argentina, and tell your opponent he can never use, or move them.  How much effect will they actually have on the game? None.

Rommel said it best I think, when referring to the defense of France against D-Day, frustrated that Hitler countermanded his orders.  “I want the allies to know they fought an army here, not a series of stationary targets.”

[knp7765]

Hmmmm.  It looks like I will need to do some rethinking of my strategies.  Obviously, I am not as well versed in A&A tactics as I thought I was.  Thanks for all the tips Gargantua.  You have given me some new ideas for my next game.  I bet more Allied AA Guns could be devastating to Japan with their dang massive air force.  Probably why Larry Harris included a Soviet AA Gun in Sakha in his new setups.

By the way, do you have any opinion on all of Larry’s setups?  I mean, he keeps changing them over and over.  First there was Alpha, then Alpha +, then Alpha +1 and now there is a new one.  I haven’t even tried Alpha + yet and not only is it already obsolete but it’s REPLACEMENT is obsolete.  I’m all for trying to balance the game, but when will we have a final setup?

Also, what do you think about AA guns being destroyed when an enemy captures them?  Maybe Larry wanted to get more people to actually buy more AA guns to replace the destroyed ones.  Of course, since facilities have their own AA defense, I guess actual AA Guns are more of a military piece than a fixture.  Maybe they should come out in national colors now.

[Daedelus]

@Gargantua:

Airbase will do,

Minor would have been cheaper, but can’t be built on a 1 IPC territory.  And you don’t want to give up a factory close to your capital.

I almost asked if AA guns could be built like facilities anywhere… because I didn’t see it specified in the rules…

You Could build a naval base in one of the territories next to the Caspian Sea.  Should you ever want to try a blocking move there.

[Razor]

Always place one infantry in every territory to prevent blitzing

[special forces]

@Razor:

Always place one infantry in every territory to prevent blitzing

or at least leave a few units behind in tactical important places, such as your capital (these could be the spawning ones)

[Gargantua]

Leaving one inf in every territory isn’t always a good idea.

You want to punch your opponent with your fist, not slap him with your fingers spread.

[captainjack]

@Gargantua:

Leaving one inf in every territory isn’t always a good idea.

You want to punch your opponent with your fist, not slap him with your fingers spread.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but it sounds like a good idea… can you explain?  haha thanks!

[special forces]

@Gargantua:

Leaving one inf in every territory isn’t always a good idea.

You want to punch your opponent with your fist, not slap him with your fingers spread.

Sure, but don’t let your guard down (like in boxing)

[Gargantua]

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but it sounds like a good idea… can you explain?  haha thanks!

“sometimes” it’s better to allow the enemy to blitz whilst keeping your army in one large group - as opposed to many small groups.

For example.  Egypt,  if you keep leaving 1 infantry out at a time, and running away, to stop the blitz, eventually you’ll run out of units, and the Italians will have killed you off.  However, if you stacked, you would stand a good chance at WINNING the fight, or preventing Italy from attacking in the first place.

China is also an excellent example of this,  RUN AWAY from the front lines and let the japs attack them for free, then counter attack the GROUND units Japan has in the region, because it’s so difficult for them to replace them.

Always place one infantry in every territory to prevent blitzing

This statement is a dangerous recommendation,  you want to be able to use all your might on your enemies at once.  For example, if every Russian territory had to have 1 infantry on it at all times.  that would mean there would be 25+ infantry out there, sitting around not able to help you in other areas, simply because you wanted to leave an infantry in every territory.

Hence the saying from  Gudering - Hit your opponent with your FIST, and not your fingers spread.

[captainjack]

@Gargantua:

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but it sounds like a good idea… can you explain?  haha thanks!

“sometimes” it’s better to allow the enemy to blitz whilst keeping your army in one large group - as opposed to many small groups.

For example.  Egypt,  if you keep leaving 1 infantry out at a time, and running away, to stop the blitz, eventually you’ll run out of units, and the Italians will have killed you off.  However, if you stacked, you would stand a good chance at WINNING the fight, or preventing Italy from attacking in the first place.

China is also an excellent example of this,  RUN AWAY from the front lines and let the japs attack them for free, then counter attack the GROUND units Japan has in the region, because it’s so difficult for them to replace them.

Always place one infantry in every territory to prevent blitzing

This statement is a dangerous recommendation,  you want to be able to use all your might on your enemies at once.  For example, if every Russian territory had to have 1 infantry on it at all times.  that would mean there would be 25+ infantry out there, sitting around not able to help you in other areas, simply because you wanted to leave an infantry in every territory.

Hence the saying from  Gudering - Hit your opponent with your FIST, and not your fingers spread.

Thank you for the clarification - that makes perfect sense.

[cminke]

leave a inf on ever 2nd row of teratoies.  if they destroythe first move the secon in. counters blitzing and doesent waste too many inf