AAG40 FAQ

So they can’t move in non combat Evan if they only moved once?

No.  Land and sea units may not move in noncombat movement after having made a combat movement and/or participated in combat.

So, what I am reading is that Air units can make a combat move up to four zones there and back and then a non-combat move of up to four zones?

@sargon:

So, what I am reading is that Air units can make a combat move up to four zones there and back and then a non-combat move of up to four zones?

No.  When you move an air unit you cannot exceed its movement (4 for fighters/tactical bombers, 6 for strategic bombers, more if certain technology is researched).  If it is meant to participate in a battle (limited to one) in that move, then you move it there for its combat move.  After all combat is finished you move it the remainder of its flight (remember, you can’t land planes in territories you have captured on that turn except for onto carriers in sea zones, and if there’s nowhere for the plane to land you can’t send it in the first place unless it was caused by the destruction of an aircraft carrier).

Edit: removed inaccurate information

@sargon:

So, what I am reading is that Air units can make a combat move up to four zones there and back and then a non-combat move of up to four zones?

No.  They move into battle in combat movement and then back to a friendly space in noncombat movement.  The total of these two movements cannot exceed the unit’s movement value.  However, if an air unit does not move at all in combat movement, it may move up to its full movement value in noncombat movement.

i have a question, this has always bugged me. if you move into a hostile, but unnoccupied terrtitiory with a tank, can you then move to a freindly territory. because previously it was said you cant do a combat move and a ncm

@thatonekid:

i have a question, this has always bugged me. if you move into a hostile, but unnoccupied terrtitiory with a tank, can you then move to a freindly territory. because previously it was said you cant do a combat move and a ncm

Yeah, that’s the tank’s special blitzing rule (it can also bring a mechanized infantry on a 1:1 ratio).  It’s all a combat move, though - not a combat move and a non-combat move.

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) onto a transport?

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) off of a transport?

@garett:

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) onto a transport?

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) off of a transport?

I’m not really sure what your question is.

A transport can hold 1 of any land unit, plus one (non-mechanized) infantry.  So it can have a tank/mech. infantry/artillery/AA gun/infantry and an infantry.  It can’t hold both a tank and a mechanized infantry.  If they’re being loaded in the same turn, it has to be in the same phase (both during the combat phase or both during the non-combat phase) and they have to be offloaded in the same phase as well.  If they’re being loaded and offloaded in the same turn it has to be within the same phase (you can’t load in the combat phase and offload in that turn’s non-combat phase).

Edit: It seems that your post may be better answered below, depending on what exactly the question was.

@garett:

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) onto a transport?

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) off of a transport?

No, a tank or mechanized infantry may not move into a coastal territory and than board a transport within the same phase. Nor may they move 1 space after exiting a transport within the same phase. Tanks and mechanized infantry must begin their turn in the territory they are boarding from and end their turn in the territory they are exiting onto.

As long as we are discussing changes…

1. I think there is something wrong with the fact that a maximum damage (6) minor IC can build one unit after 4 IPCS of repair while a maximum damage major IC (20) needs to spend 11 IPCS to do the same.  A heavily bombed player may even wish they could replace their own majors with minors under the current rules if the game is not going well for them.  It just seems to not mesh with the idea of the territory being more heavily industrailized.  Or maybe it was intended to go with a “The bigger they are, the harder they fall” philosophy.

2. I haven’t tested this yet, but I’d like to try counting mech inf as the same as an inf for transport purposes.  IE, a transport can carry any 2 units as long as at least one is an inf or mech.  The reason for this is simply because in the european theatre the USA and Commonwealth (except for a few early war units in the mid-east) infantry were fully motorized.  I’d like to be able to replicate that without being penalized by having half empty transports, but maybe every trans carrying a tank and a mech is just too much.

@moralecheck:

As long as we are discussing changes…

1. I think there is something wrong with the fact that a maximum damage (6) minor IC can build one unit after 4 IPCS of repair while a maximum damage major IC (20) needs to spend 11 IPCS to do the same.  A heavily bombed player may even wish they could replace their own majors with minors under the current rules if the game is not going well for them.   It just seems to not mesh with the idea of the territory being more heavily industrailized.  Or maybe it was intended to go with a “The bigger they are, the harder they fall” philosophy.

2. I haven’t tested this yet, but I’d like to try counting mech inf as the same as an inf for transport purposes.  IE, a transport can carry any 2 units as long as at least one is an inf or mech.  The reason for this is simply because in the european theatre the USA and Commonwealth (except for a few early war units in the mid-east) infantry were fully motorized.  I’d like to be able to replicate that without being penalized by having half empty transports, but maybe every trans carrying a tank and a mech is just too much.

1. You have a point there.  SBR isn’t too popular in this game, though.

2. That’s why I prefer to have mechanized infantry as a technology rather than a separate unit.

1.  What is Alpha +2 I hear mentioned alot?

2.  UK cannot scramble fighters in the standard rules, correct?

3.  If I have an industrial complex in Romania, the Turkish straight is still controlled by Turkey so its closed, can I still build sea units in sea zone 100, they just cant leave until the straight is opened?  (If the question makes no sense basically Russia is moving all its units towards Barbarrosa so I want to basically drop units into Caucasus via transports in z100 behind thier main line to put pressure on Stalingrad or to pincer his other units).

@oly:

1.  What is Alpha +2 I hear mentioned alot?

A creator (Larry Harris) developed and endorsed setup and rule adjustment to correct some perceived imbalances in A&A 1940 Pacific (alone) and A&A 1940 Global.  It can be used for AA1940 Europe as well, although the theater specific games haven’t been tested as extensively as Global.  Theoretically, it should be a more interesting setup as it provides Italy with a navy that can possibly survive round one and some rule changes that prevent the Norwegian US major factory problem.

@oly:

2.  UK cannot scramble fighters in the standard rules, correct?

Correct.  Per OOB rules, the UK is not an “island” per the definition of the game.  Alpha .2+ rules keep the definition of “island” the same, but allow airbases to scramble to any coastal seazone adjacent to the airbase territory.

@oly:

3.  If I have an industrial complex in Romania, the Turkish straight is still controlled by Turkey so its closed, can I still build sea units in sea zone 100, they just cant leave until the straight is opened?  (If the question makes no sense basically Russia is moving all its units towards Barbarrosa so I want to basically drop units into Caucasus via transports in z100 behind thier main line to put pressure on Stalingrad or to pincer his other units).

Yes.

I can agree with number 2.  Personally, I dont see why we need mechanized infantry to begin with, all infantry are mechanized!  It’s not like you have a battalion of soldiers with no jeeps, no halftracks, no duece-and-halfs, no silversides, no cattlecars, etc, etc, etc.  What makes one more mechanized than the other?  As for blitzing with tanks, is that not just soldiers jumping on the tank and riding along?

hmmm, I can see the point.  Mechanized inf means the development of a true APC, not the half tracks the Germans had, but a wholly enclosed armored troop carrier.  And when we are talking about the numbers that are represented in A&A that is going to equate to entire corps of motorized and mechanized infantry.  Just not practical on the battlefield, Mech inf are a support unit to help keep inf up with the tanks.

Inf riding on tanks however should not be included.  For one it would be on a small scale,  you’re not riding a tank 200 miles, just over the front line.  Also, most nations and soldiers realized that riding on a tank is a sure way to leave a bloody stain, the Russians did it most because they lacked appreciable numbers of tracked infantry carriers.

@Cmdr:

I can agree with number 2.  Personally, I dont see why we need mechanized infantry to begin with, all infantry are mechanized!  It’s not like you have a battalion of soldiers with no jeeps, no halftracks, no duece-and-halfs, no silversides, no cattlecars, etc, etc, etc.  What makes one more mechanized than the other?  As for blitzing with tanks, is that not just soldiers jumping on the tank and riding along?

Actually, this is why I like the idea of the 2 types of infantry and the extra cost of the mech.  As I said earlier, the USA and Commonwealth were the only 2 that pulled it off.  The Germans were next, but a very distant runner up.  Most of their infantry units relied on horses.  It just doesn’t look that way as the wartime propoganda films always followed the tanks and panzer grenadiers (mech inf).  Italy was supplied with captured French trucks and Opel Blitz by the Germans to supplement their low production, yet they were never able to fully motorize in Africa or Russia and they never even tried elswhere.  China had 300 divisions, only one was motorized.  Japan only had 2 tank divisions and used motorized transport for supply except on rare occasions.

It adds a splash of historical flavor, because it translates well in game terms.  The USA can easily afford it, and Britain too, once the US is there to help them (but both have the option of cheaper leg units if things don’t go well).  Germany buys a decent sprinkling of them and everyone else gets the odd one when they are able to justify it.

I brought this idea up about mech infantry being treated like infantry on transports over on Larrys website a few months ago. It just got ignored. I thought it had merit.

Honestly though, how often do you buy a mech. infantry instead of a normal infantry?

Here is my situation. SZ 6 is occupied by the American Navy, and the IJN is within striking range but out numbered. So my question is, can I ncm my fleet back to SZ 6 to regroup with some naval units to be built that turn? Or does the U.S. Navy need to be removed first?