Cooperative Attacks

@Die:

I’m playing a game with some friends right now, and I have always played that you must declare all your invasions first before determining the outcome of any battle since it states in the rules that “all combat movement is considered to take place at the same time.” My friends on the Axis side aren’t convinced it means that you have to declare all invasions at once.

Another section in the rule book seems to make it clear to me that the way I have played is correct - “Combat in each space takes place at the same time, but each affected territory or sea zone is resolved separately and completely before resolving combat in the next contested space. The attacker decides the order of spaces in which each combat occurs.”

The rule seems clear to me that you can’t resolve one battle and then base your decision of where to invade next off of the outcome of that battle. But I realize that the rulebook doesn’t distinctly say “you must declare all invasions before resolving them” or something like that. I realize the last sentence in the above quote might cause confusion too.

So can anyone help me by elaborating a bit on this rule so it makes more sense? Or, if I’m wrong about it, tell me why?

Welcome to A&A.org.

Right. In fact transports don’t roll. They need other warships as protection. Only the other ships roll.

@theROCmonster:

G1 Egypt without the fighter is 2 infantry arty tank fighter bomber vs inf tank fighter… not that big of a risk at all.

When I am Germany it is.  :-P :wink:

When I would play Revised more often, I had a penchant for having that battle go horribly wrong. We usualyl had 7 bids for Germany which meant inf/art in Libya

The best example.
With 3 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 1 ftr, 1 bmb, I rolled 12 out of 13 6’s the first 2 rounds. He got 4 hits the first two rounds. I wish I still had the screenshots.

I eventually I had ftr/bmb left and I think all he had was ftr, but I still retreated. Sometimes you just gotta know when the dice hate you and it is futile to object.

@Bunnies:

@saturnracer:

Hate to ask

Don’t be controlled by your hate.

Fear leads to hate.  Hate leads to anger.  Anger leads to Dark Side Ice Cream Munchies.  And that leads to high blood pressure and cholesterol, and the ability to use the Force Grip on your enemies.

Which seems pretty cool when you use it on your mean boss, until the Jedi cops show up.  And then it’s all celery sticks, man, and no veggie dip.

NOT FUN.

Bunnies, have you been eating those weird mushrooms again?  :-D

Yes, that’s correct.  The move is done after the attacker finishes all battles, but before the attacker makes any noncombat movements.

Thanks. I skimmed through the book one more time before asking, but couldn’t find anything.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Rev 1) In a situation where only defenseless transports are present a single attacking piece can be used to destroy them allowing the rest to perfrom offshore bombardment.

I think this is a question of value… You can chose to ignore transports, allowing Bombardment on the territory, which improves your chances of winning the IPC’s and position from territory.
…OR choose to sink Transports Each costing 7 IPC’s but lose the bombardment option.
I think they did this to force the choice, for strategic purposes and game balance

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Rev 2) This is much more radical.  In a situation where there is a defending fleet, some of the attacking fleet is held in reserve.  Combat occurs in the sea zone and if the attacker wins, then the the reserve fleet performs offshore bombardment.

Doesn’t make much sense to me, If an Entire Sea Zone is considered hostile because of any amount of surface warships, any Sea units entering their fire range are vulnerable.  If i were a defending Carrier with planes and i see lots of ships Im gonna try to sink the most valued units, it would help my defense in the land portion. Also, if the attacker could do that then the defender should have some similar balancing option, like maybe the ability to retreat defending planes, to the Land Territ.

@habs4life9:

But how would you define “the start of the game”?

I would limit it to those territories that are under Russian control at the time of set-up.  It would not apply to territories that Russia conquers and then loses (recognizing that the rationale of the rule should apply to territories like the Ukraine–but when was the last time the British or Americans captured the Ukraine anyway?).  As a practical matter, the rule tweaking I suggest is intended from preventing the British (primarily) from bailing the Russians out in Karelia.