New scrambing rule question

@JPatrickRemiger

Welcome!

mainah covered most of the points, and I mostly agree.

TripleA is really good. I estimated it decreased the amount of time it takes for me to play a solo game (by myself, I do that a lot) by 50-90%. Playing by the board is fun though if you have the time.

Definitely play online against real humans. mainah’s right, I learned a lot more from those than solo games. Let me know if you want to play.

AI’s not great, they’re only useful after you’ve become moderately good for quirky projects.

For IPCs, I use the National Production Chart. It’s definitely prone to errors, hence why I like TripleA (computer does it for you).

Personally I started with one theater first to get a feel for the basic mechanics (I progressed from 1941, which I played a ton of), but progressed to Global quickly (possibly one or two games too quickly). If this is your first Axis and Allies game ever, if you want to take things slowly start with one theater.

Once I started Global 1940 I’ve never looked back (only a few times to test single theater strategies).

Ah, that makes sense now. Thank you

Generally speaking powers defend together. However in G40 there are powers that start off neutral (Russia and USA) or not at war with each other (like Japan and UK/France). You could have a case at sea when you attack a sz with units from multiple powers, and can ignore the units that belong to a power that you aren’t yet at war with.

Ah never mind my previous comments, Kriegshund has it correct. There’s a special rule just for this scenario:

“An attacking land unit can assault a coastal territory
from an ally’s transport, but only on the turn of
the attacking land unit’s owner.  All of the normal
requirements for transports offloading in a sea
zone must still be met by the attacking power (see
“Special Combat Movement, Transports”, page 16),
and any scrambled air units will prevent the landing
if they cannot be destroyed”

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf (page 21)

On page 16 it permits a scramble to resist amphibious attacks:

“They can also be scrambled to resist amphibious
assaults from adjacent sea zones”

@elevenjerk:

Cool.  Makes sense but I think (not that it means much) that planes on a carrier don’t defend in the air unless there is something to defend against.  I’m new here but I’ve been reading for well over a year and I appreciate all the info given!  Thanks!

If it helps justify it, imagine that they’re flying CAP, and were already in the air when the subs struck.  The only time aircraft aren’t considered “in the air” is when attacking with a carrier that has a friendly plane.  In all other circumstances, the airplanes are independent of the carrier (and already in the air).  Not just when attacked, but even before they were attacked.  Hence, Combat Air Patrol.

I’m not so sure about the new convoy raiding rules.  It was kind of nice to have a set amount, something you could count on each round as long as your submarines or warships survived to attack the convoys.  However, the new system does present the possibility of getting much more damage per ship (6 per sub and 3 per warship) plus it lets carrier planes get involved too.  I will be interested to try them out in my next game and see how they work.

House rule:  Submarines fire at 2 on defense if there is no enemy destroyer present…?

@Zallomallo:

@Zcion:

Quick clarification:

in before mentioned case, UK income 8+5 from NO, 4 ger subs in sz109 and 1 in sz119.
would uk loose 8 or 10 ipc due to convoy disruption?

afaik you cant convoy disrup NO?

many thx
Zcion

Correct, disruption is capped by the surrounding territories’ income.

Well, it’s capped by the total value of each convoy zone’s adjacent spaces, which can technically exceed income collected from those territories.  But you’re correct in that disruption does not affect National Objectives or at least does not affect the 40 on West US.

However, I’m not certain of the timing of convoy vs objectives and whether convoy disruption affects total income after objectives are collected.  Convoys can only affect values of territories, but since they can exceed income you’d collect from territories (by the double dips similar to 109/119), I don’t know whether than can dig a little into objectives.  Based on the Pac40 west US errata, it would seem no but this is not specifically addressed by the errata, which clarified that WUS was not worth 40, it was only worth 10, and could only be blocked up to 10.

So, as long as britain is making an additional 2 ipcs income through other territories, if sz109 and sz119 are fully blocked, Britain will lose 10 ipcs (8 for 109 and 2 for 119).  If Britain is making less than 10 IPCs in income before national objectives, they collect 0 for those their territorial income, and then collect national objective ipcs.

However, it’s VERY rare indeed that the UK does not still collect from an african or canadian territory that would put its territorial income over 10, in which case, if sc109 and 119 are fully blocked, they lose 10 IPCS.