Caspian Sea

…
AAA allows those ships that moved out of sz 6 at the beginning of the combat phase (but not used in the battle) to also move during the non-combat phase, so long as they still have movements left (i.e. they only moved one space during the combat phase to avoid the ensuing battle, and still have one of their two spaces left).

Is this a bug in AAA or is that actually a legal move. I’ve done it before and have seen others do it before, so I assumed it was legal, but maybe it’s not.

Does anyone know for sure?

Yes, it is a bug in TripleA - but it is stated in the game notes included with the map.

@AlphaAeffchen:

@ Kreuzfeld. You are totally right but the problem is if i do this buys for UK they can do nothing for many rounds in Europe. Italy gets very strong in the med. The USA have to fight Japan. The allies in Europe  are getting a problem because UK is isolatet because of only inf buy and USA has to Focus on Japan (but you are right i have to do this buy for UK).

In the scenario I made, US will only have to buy 2 bombers on US 1 (in most scenarios) and move 3 of the US planes to canada. They are capable of going towards Japan if Germany don’t buy the TTs in G2.

If germany doen’t buy 3 TTs on G1 (and save their money instead), I am doing taronto, and buy 6 inf and 1 ftr and lose no time in the Med. If they do buy 7 art on G1, I am buying a mIC in egypt and 5 inf in UK.

The only “loosing investments” UK has is : 3 inf instead of ftr on UK1, no taronto on UK 1 (I think 3 useless german transports might be too steep a price for germany to pay for this result).

The other losing investment is the canadian airbase and a few allied TTs on UK2/US2, however, they are more than offsett by the 9 german TTs that has to be bought to force me to do it.

The advantage I get for this plan is that no german should try for the sealion after US1, then that is just a lost game if they buy the 9 TTs. This means that I can (if I want to) send everything US builds against japan, including US turn 1 build. I am still taking Persia on UK1, so I can build the mIC on UK2 and shut down the middle east as fast as possible. My favourite way of playing the UK is to have 1 mIC in each of iran, iraq and egypt, and to use them to buy volumes of inf and mechs for a giant uk landarmy that can reach where i want them

I still think the game is favouring the axis, all I was commenting on was that in a J1, it is so much cheaper for the allied to prevent the sealion, so it will never happen.

The rule book and what is said by play testers trump what AAA says.

@WILD:

@knp7765:

This is why we modified the Russian NO with our own house rule……

I know this is out of place, but the Russian NO is very much part of an over all Med strat….(one that shouldn’t exist IMO).

Yea, the 3 IPC bonus the Russians get for Italian African territories, and Med islands is ridiculous (it has been a major gripe sense it was introduced). This theater was never a realistic or historic goal for the Russians, and it is exploited way to much as ppl get more familiar with it. This NO was changed partially to boost the Russians if there is a Sea Lion (kinda like a penalty), but now it is being manipulated even w/o Sea Lion.

IMO Finland, The Balkans, The Mid East, and Eastern Europe (Orig German territories) are a realistic goal. I’l even buy Original Italian possession in Europe like Albania, parts of N Italy and maybe even Rome could also be added to the list (but the Americans beat them to it for the most part).

What we are experimenting with (not an original house rule by any means) is that Russia gets a bonus for any Orig German, Orig Italian, Pro Axis Neutral , and Pro Allied Neutral territory that Russia is in control of equal to that territories IPC value (could also include True Neutrals activated by the Axis, or liberated by Russia from the Axis). This makes the Italian Med islands worthless, and Libya/Ethiopia hardly worth going after. It will tone down some territory bonuses for the Russians (like Bulgaria), but allows them some new territories to target as well that were more in tune with their goals IMO.

Obviously Finland was a major goal, but so was the Balkans (Bulgaria, Yugo, Romania, maybe Albania, and Greece) especially once they beat back the Germans (like in a Sea Lion attempt, or a failed assault on Moscow). In The Mid East it still allows the Russians to gain NO bonus for control of Iraq (reduced), and now Persia for added income once at war (could be as late as R4 before they could be in either because they have to pause in NW Persia). The NO bonus for Iraq, and Persia could also simulate the lend lease coming up through the Persian Gulf. I know that Persia being Russian isn’t very historical as it was British controlled (Russia did invade what is NW Persia though). My thinking here is that if the UK doesn’t take Persia early (leaving it for Russia), then the Allies are out some English Pounds and a couple of inf needed early on. If Germany does a G3 Barbarossa, then by time Russia gets to Persia it would be Rus4 (6 or more IPCs lost to England if they activated it UK1). It would be a viable target however for the Russians to Liberate Persia from the Axis after going for the Oil Bonus, to get a bonus of their own).

In the event of a Sea Lion (or failed assault on Moscow), the Russians would still get good bonuses for the orig German, orig Italian, Pro Axis Neutral, and now some Pro allied Neutral territories in the Balkans & Mid East (average of 2-3 IPCs each). If they crack into Northern Italy, or Greater German territories then their NO bonuses rise even more.

The med island thing is no big deal, since 1 axis plane in SITA stops any russian landing.  But, I do like the NO changes you proposed.  It should only affect Original axis in Europe, and all neutrals in Europe/Middle-East. (No islands).

Your response was perfect  :)

And I still prefer Barbarossa!

So USA is at war, right? How’s the situation in the DEI?

1. i hope germany won’t snatch those planes. How is the German escort fleet? (the one protecting their transports?)

2. see somewhere below.

3. Has Italy taken Gibraltar already? Take it back ASAP! or block SZ91 immediately if you can’t reach Gibraltar with enough troops.
You can pick SZ91/Gibraltar as your US bridgehead (good reach to basically everywhere)

4. Don’t retreat your Hawaii fleet, keep the pressure on Japan. You have enough money to spawn a fresh one in E-USA, strong enough to withstand Axis fleet/air.

Personally i like the Atlantic sub-approach…
Start with building some subs (about 6 or even more but make sure you don’t loose them, so always watch out for enemy destroyers withing reach) and a destroyer to get those subs around england, you’ll need 1 destroyer to send to SZ91 to block the italians. All these subs will come in very handy later (massacre of the italian fleet and convoy raids in the med (or UK if it falls). If those 2 mid-sea subs are within reach of the US coast, build at least an AC or BB this turn, and always keep at least 1 DD present.
The subs will also make Germany have to worry about their transporter fleet (either bothering their movement or making them have to invest in more ships, which is a good thing). if you have enough money, already buy an AC with 2 fighters (for ex: 6 SUB + 1 DD + AC + 2 FIG = 80IPC), this way the current fleet is completely safe.

Next turn build up your surface fleet:
You don’t need a HUGE fleet, but make sure it is more than strong enough to survive a German (possibly followed by an italian) attack. Ships cost money and bringing them to Europe costs time.
I’d say: at least 1 BB (or 2 if you can afford it), 2 AC’s (filled with 2 fighters and 2 tacs, or 3 fighters and 1 tac), at least 2 destroyers (1 to protect from crazy subs, another one to do some blocking or provoking actions oir suicide runs). never fall shoret of destroyers.

And of course a few transports.  :)

Welcome to the forums Larrie! If you ever have questions like this in the future we have a High Res map on the Global section. Check it out it’s pretty handy.

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.