Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
or it may not actually be allowed to attack at all - Krieghund has said you must have a unit with attack power, to attack.
UK could bring the transport(s) in with just a carrier as an escort, since its plan is to ignore the sub rather than attack. However, as you pointed out, it would be pointless in this situation as Germany could simply scramble and thwart the assault with no risk to its units.
-
Okay, I am a little confused. I understand the concept of having a warship escort your transports for amphibious assaults if there is an enemy sub present. However, I understood that it could NOT be an aircraft carrier because they do not have an attack value. Escorting warships HAD to have an attack value.
It’s like with convoy raiding. An aircraft carrier by itself can not conduct convoy damage. -
Yeah, you were thinking wrong. There is no attack value requirement when you read the rule about escorting transports looking to amphibiously assault over a submarine infested sea zone
Has nothing to do with convoy raiding
There IS an attack value requirement for entering into combat (you can’t attack with transports and carriers alone, looking to hit and run), but again, not related to the submarine rule
-
At the beginning of my turn, there are my fleets together with enemy’s sub in the same SZ. Is it legal to move my fleets out of this SZ in the combat move phase without taking part in any other battle?
Anyone can help?
-
At the beginning of my turn, there are my fleets together with enemy’s sub in the same SZ. Is it legal to move my fleets out of this SZ in the combat move phase without taking part in any other battle?
Anyone can help?
There will be a battle in this sz this turn btw. ( trying to kill this sub.)
-
Page 12-13 of the Europe rule book
The general rule is that you can’t move units in the combat movement phase if it doesn’t result in combat.
“During the combat move phase, all movement must end in a hostile space, with a few exceptions (see below)”
The closest exception is regarding hostile sea zones, but a sea zone with only subs/transports is not hostile.
Exception #2, bullet point on page 13
“Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move. A sea zone into which defending air units may be scrambled in reaction to an amphibious assault may be treated in the same was as a hostile sea zone for this purpose.”
Exception #3
“Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or air units that may be needed to support it in the case that defending air units are scrambled”So it is only legal to move ships away from a zone with a sub in it, during the Combat Move phase, if those ships will be possibly participating in combat. If you can’t move them away during the combat movement phase and you are going to engage the sub, then those ships will necessarily be involved in the sub battle, so cannot move in the noncombat movement phase.
Attack the sub or move the ships, you can’t do both because it is not legal to move ships away from a non-hostile zone in the combat movement phase if those ships are not making a combat move (going to attack or support an amphibious assault).
-
Page 12-13 of the Europe rule book
The general rule is that you can’t move units in the combat movement phase if it doesn’t result in combat.
“During the combat move phase, all movement must end in a hostile space, with a few exceptions (see below)”
The closest exception is regarding hostile sea zones, but a sea zone with only subs/transports is not hostile.
Exception #2, bullet point on page 13
“Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move. A sea zone into which defending air units may be scrambled in reaction to an amphibious assault may be treated in the same was as a hostile sea zone for this purpose.”
Exception #3
“Sea units that will be participating in an amphibious assault from a friendly sea zone, as well as sea and/or air units that may be needed to support it in the case that defending air units are scrambled”So it is only legal to move ships away from a zone with a sub in it, during the Combat Move phase, if those ships will be possibly participating in combat. If you can’t move them away during the combat movement phase and you are going to engage the sub, then those ships will necessarily be involved in the sub battle, so cannot move in the noncombat movement phase.
Attack the sub or move the ships, you can’t do both because it is not legal to move ships away from a non-hostile zone in the combat movement phase if those ships are not making a combat move (going to attack or support an amphibious assault).
HI Gamerman01
Thank you for the quick response. But it’s still ambiguous here. In this case, Exception #2 should apply “Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move.” . When the attacker attacks this SZ with destroyer and the defender sub can’t submerge, then this SZ is bound to be hostile and conduct combat. Any seazone that conducts inevitable combat should be considered as a hostile SZ in my opinion.
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 mins laterIgnore all these pls. Find Krieghund’s words somewhere “Attacking a sub (or transport) in a sea zone doesn’t make it hostile. Hostile sea zones are defined by the presence of enemy surface warships, not by combat.”
-
Right. The definition of hostile sea zone is simply -
Enemy surface warship present
Page 8, under “sea zones”
And quick?? No, that was slow - it was over 3 hours! :-o
-
Has n’t anybody in this forum questioned about this rule in this situation? It is so bizarre and can be abused. 1 lone sub can detain whole bunch of fleets or get free convoy? I don’t think so. The proper rule should be “Units moving from a sea zone (regardless it’s hostile or not) to escape combat as their combat move.” I want to hear what official ruler have to say about this.
-
I think you will quickly realize how ridiculous that is. Let’s imagine 1 enemy destroyer or 1 sub or 1 transport is there.
when facing 1 enemy destroyer, commander says " soldiers, lets kill it and move on." Great, isn’t it?
When seeing 1 enemy sub or 1 transport, commander says " soldiers, we can do nothing about it, we have to move on." WTF. I say send him to military court and accuse him of aiding the enemy.
-
There are many rules in A&A that don’t exactly make sense. Starting with, whole countries taking turns. Allies that can’t attack together. It goes on and on.
I hear the sub did maximum convoy damage against you :lol:
-
Still not sure whether it is a loophole of the rules or official ruler deliberately make the rule so. If this serves for the balance of the game, that’s fine. If not, I would like to hear the reason behind this rule.
-
Krieghund used to frequent this thread but he hasn’t posted for awhile. If you really want to know, you’ll need him.
In the meantime, I’ll take a stab.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with “game balance”. It’s not like it benefits one side more than the other.It’s derived from the relatively new “ignore submarines and transports” rules.
Sure, they could have worded the exception to say “to avoid combat”, but they didn’t. My guess is, it is an unintended “loophole”, as I think also is the cheesy ANZAC declare war on Japan after UK moves a destroyer smack into Japan’s main transport fleet. IMO this is a much bigger scofflaw than your little sub thing. :-)I’ll tell you a rule that bugs me more - it’s that you can’t destroy transports and also bombard from the same zone. If you have a single non-bombarding attacking unit, it should be able to sink the transports - you shouldn’t have to choose (whether to bombard, or to sink transports).
Seems you are extra focused on this one rule because it worked against you once in a game :roll:
My point is, as I said before, there are actually many of these quirky rules that could really bug a player. The rule book is set at this point AFAIK. Since 2nd edition, it’s been pretty much time to accept the rules as they are and learn to play with them. It is fruitless to seek reasoning or campaign for change. That ship sailed, when Larry was actually getting (way too much) feedback from all the players between OOB and 2nd edition.
If you really have a beef (again, I think you are just frustrated because you couldn’t sink a sub and it convoyed you for maximum damage once), then you should message Larry directly, on his website. Maybe you will have an effect on a future game. I highly doubt it.
There are many, many subtle little rules like this one that can catch a player off guard. Be glad it wasn’t one that made you lose the game. That can happen.
Also, now that you know the rule, it shouldn’t catch you again, and you can exploit it yourself. That’s always been a part of playing A&A, from the beginning.
Happy gaming, Magic
-
Still not sure whether it is a loophole of the rules or official ruler deliberately make the rule so. If this serves for the balance of the game, that’s fine. If not, I would like to hear the reason behind this rule.
It’s a loophole. It’s kind of funny that we’re still finding them after all this time, with all of the people that have been playing these games.
I’ll tell you a rule that bugs me more - it’s that you can’t destroy transports and also bombard from the same zone. Â If you have a single non-bombarding attacking unit, it should be able to sink the transports - you shouldn’t have to choose (whether to bombard, or to sink transports).
Let me explain this rule.
Destroying defenseless transports is no different than any other combat, other than the fact that it’s optional. The thing that a lot of people fail to grasp is that the defenseless transport rule does nothing in effect but keep you from a having to roll several rounds of dice to kill something that can’t shoot back; it doesn’t make transports some kind of “sub-unit” that can be swatted like a fly.
Choosing to destroying a single transport prevents bombardment for the same reason that a single destroyer does. Units can only fight one battle each round, and all units in the same space (with an exception for units belonging to powers not at war) must participate in combats fought in that space. To paraphrase the great philosopher Horton the Elephant, a combat’s a combat, no matter how small.
-
To paraphrase the great philosopher Horton the Elephant, a combat’s a combat, no matter how small.
I love it. :lol:
-
Same as I think. Shore bombardment then no sea battle, sea battle then no bombardment. Perfectly fine. Shouldn’t bother you that much, dear Gamerman.
I am glad not only because I will get few ipc back in my game but most importantly whole league will play in a right way from now on.
-
Same as I think. Shore bombardment then no sea battle, sea battle then no bombardment. Perfectly fine. Shouldn’t bother you that much, dear Gamerman.
I am glad not only because I will get few ipc back in my game but most importantly whole league will play in a right way from now on.
??
Just because Krieghund said it was a loophole does not mean you have changed the rule. How are you getting IPC’s back?
All league games are played by what is printed in the rulebook, loopholes and all. -
Same as I think. Shore bombardment then no sea battle, sea battle then no bombardment. Perfectly fine. Shouldn’t bother you that much, dear Gamerman.
I am glad not only because I will get few ipc back in my game but most importantly whole league will play in a right way from now on.
??
Just because Krieghund said it was a loophole does not mean you have changed the rule. How are you getting IPC’s back?
All league games are played by what is printed in the rulebook, loopholes and all.Keep this loophole and exploit ignorant axis player? Not a good idea.
-
Loopholes are only closed by new laws/rules and we have none. The rules are what they are - they are the same for everyone.
-
Still not sure whether it is a loophole of the rules or official ruler deliberately make the rule so. If this serves for the balance of the game, that’s fine. If not, I would like to hear the reason behind this rule.
It’s a loophole. It’s kind of funny that we’re still finding them after all this time, with all of the people that have been playing these games.
Please provide us with an amended rule in this case. It is clear that your intention is to allow sea units’ movement to avoid combat during combat move phase. But still need you to confirm.
Suggested Topics
