I’ve always played that way except it seems for the game I am currently playing, forgot all about only having 3 stacks of bombers!
BB
I too play with max three “stacks” of bombers, although it rarely becomes relevant (for me) since most games are over before enough money is aquired to afford bombers in more than three places.
The same is true of all units actually. You cannot have more than 2 stacks of carriers or 3 stacks of Battleships, like that would ever happen. Can’t have more than 20 stacks of INF or 10 stacks of ARM, 5 stacks of subs, 8 stacks of transports, 10 stacks of fighters. You can’t stack AA guns at all, can’t build more than 4 new factories and I’m not sure how many AA guns are allowed to be built. Guess dats it.
BB
Okay, I think this has been discussed in other topics, but I’d like some clarification of unloading transports.
Transport with 2 inf on it:
I know it is legal to unload 1 inf on two different territories during non-combat. Infact, the rulebook cites an example of the UK dropping 1 inf on Finland and 1 inf on Western Europe provided they control both.
But what about during combat move?
I’ve always thought and played that you could unload on multiple territories provided they are all adjacent to the same sea zone, i.e. UK sz, Red sea, East Med sz, etc.
I’ve looked in the rulebook and could not find anywhere that states you can’t, nor could I find an example of doing so. Just curious to see if anyone can cite the rulebook stating that unloading to multiple territories during combat move is forbidden.
http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axis
Can a transport unload two infantry into two different territories?
Yes, but only during noncombat movement. Both territories need to be adjacent to the same sea zone.
Can I have more stacks of bombers (or battleships, or whatever) than there are bomber pieces? If so, how would I mark them?
Marking them isn’t a problem because you can’t have them in the first place. The number of playing pieces is a limit on how many forces can be in play. No one, for example, can have more than three bomber forces, or more than two carrier groups. The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game.
Note that this applies throughout the entire turn. A stack of six bombers can’t split up into more than three groups when they fly out to attack.
BB
who here playes by that last rule about only having bombers in 3 places?
Purty much everybody I’ve ever played (on the board game.)
You are limited by the # of pieces (not fair to deprive others of their bmrs) unless you purchase extra pieces. Players should be able to use logistics(right, BB?) and a strategy (a plan for those of you in Rio Linda) to make a game of it. Of course, mistakes by your opponent and average/good dice rolls by you and/or average/bad dice rolls by your opponents helps.
We’ve always played the original as having limited numbers of groups of units, such as only 3 bomber groups.
But there is a clarification of this rule in A&A : P. It says that if you run out of a piece, just use a small slip of paper with the unit type written on it.
I have nothing against playing with the limit on stacks rule if someone insists on it. However, I prefer the house rule (the CD rule it seems as well ,for what that’s worth) that seems more realistic, that there can be as many as you can afford. There are, after all, sources for additonal pieces.
The original NOVA game had rules where you could only build as many units as were started out with the game. IE, only 20 INF, not 20 stacks but ONLY 20 INF!
OUCH!
That would be like playing Risk with no more than
the 20, 25, 30, 40 or 60 armies with which you started!
How Pre-Cambrian!
I can remember being Japan, having all 20 INF, 10 ARM, 10 FTR, 6 BMR built and going into battle with enough money to completely replace the land units and all FTRs.
We also played unlimited builds on an IC, oh the strategies of England buying and IC on gibralter! Pre-Cambrian indeed!
The way I play it, When someone runs out of, say, trannys, we take another country’s tranny and stick a NCM under it to indicate that it does NOT belong to the country that we took it from.
Sorry, I had some trouble articulating that.
That’s clear enough to me. The problem is, I’ve seen all countries run out of the original tansk at one time. We often (usually) play that you can build as many stacks and as many in a stack as you can afford. That requires extra pieces or some other substitute for the original tokens.
I found this out when playing the CD version:
If you have a transport with units (say in the middle med) you can move and unload units while in a seazone that has enemy units in it (say eastern med) so you could take a tank from southern europe and drop it off in egypt, even with the brit sub. Although it would still attack, you would drop off the tank first and not have to worry about losing it to the sub.
That’s a bug in the pc game, it’s against the rules.
I found this out when playing the CD version:
If you have a transport with units (say in the middle med) you can move and unload units while in a seazone that has enemy units in it (say eastern med) so you could take a tank from southern europe and drop it off in egypt, even with the brit sub. Although it would still attack, you would drop off the tank first and not have to worry about losing it to the sub.
i take it that you DO own egypt in this case… cause if i have to fight for egypt and lost the sea battle… no unit from tranny in egypt
No, i don’t own egypt. The game considers it a seperate battle, the fight in egypt and the fight in egyption waters.
I don’t agree with 1.31
”Q: Can I load units onto a transport in the combat movement phase even though these units will not be involved in combat?
A: Yes, you may load units onto a transport during the combat movement phase regardless if they are to be used in combat or not. These units can enter the transport, be used in an amphibious assault, remain on board, or leave during the non combat movement phase. If any of these units are to be used in combat, you must specifically declare which units will be used and where. Units going aboard a transport must do so prior to any naval battle taking place in the sea zone. (AAMC FAQ)”
In combat movement phase only units that should be involved in battle may move so I think that’s clearly illgal.
A diference of opinion.
It’s like monopoly! How many of you play by the rules?…
Auction…If a player lands on an unowned property and does not buy it, the property goes up for auction(run by the banker.)
Lifting a mortgage…If a player wishes to lift a mortgage s/he must pay the mortgage price plus 10% to the bank.
Miscellaneous… Money can only be loaned to a player by the bank and then only by mortgaging property.
Free Parking…Players landing there receive no money,property or reward. This is just a free space!!
…just to name the major “fudges” in another popular game.
Here’s a question I have for the Enlightened Ones (i’ll let you all decided who that is….)(lol). Anyway, let’s say that Germany brings it’s Med Battleship and transport (w/troops from italy) and do an amphib assault on Syria, while the Afrika Korps invades Egypt from Libya. For the sake of argument, the British submarine is still in the sea zone, so there’s a naval engagment. According to the reference chart’s Naval combat sequence list, surviving submarines may withdrawl after all casualties are removed from that round of (dice) rolls. So let’s say that the Brit submarine survives and withdrawls through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea Zone. Germany proceeds with amphib assault, and the attack on Egyp, taking both, meaning Britan no longer controls the Suez. Now, I remember reading in the rules book that a ship cannot use the Suez unless both Egypt and Israel are owned by friendlies. If the invasions of Egypt and Syria are occuring at the same time as the naval battle with the sub and there is a possibilty that the brits could loose the Suez, can the Sub still escape through the Suez?
