Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Hi Cond1024: no to both parts. The only thing UK can split between the two economies is Tech, from which they would then both benefit.
-
can the UK uprage its minor industrial complex in S.A. to a Major?
-
Can only upgrade if the area is 3 IPC or greater, Minor is 2 IPC and no islands
-
no islands can have major?
-
What IL was saying is that “islands” can’t have an IC at all, while minors can only be placed in territorities with an IPC value of 2 or greater and majors can only be placed or upgraded in “your” original territories with an IPC value of 3 or greater.
So no to the major in South Africa because it only has an IPC value of 2.
-
Island rule for IC don’t include Japan, Australia, UK.
Just all the little islands that have mostly no IPC, including Borneo, Indies, “the dutch” areas and New Zealand.
The rules exists because Norway used to be able to get a US major factory pumping out 10 tanks, which broke the game. Larry overlooked this and fixed it.
-
@Imperious:
Island rule for IC don’t include Japan, Australia, UK.
Per the definitions in the game rules, the UK is not an Island. Australia is not an Island either (I mean, sure, it’s a continent, we all know that, but it’s also not a single territory surrounded by a single seazone). But yes, the island rule doesn’t include Japan.
-
So you can’t build in IC in Borneo, Hawaii, New Zealand, etc?
-
Correct.
-
How would this scenario play out? 3 UK inf and 3UK art are loaded on three US transports attacking western germany from SZ 112, (UK’s turn) with a large US navy in the same sea zone and no UK navy or air. Germany scrambles to defend the sea zone but my question is are the German air able to sink US transports? If so that seems a little strange that the America navy would sit by while one of their transports are sinking. Also since it is an American transport on UKs turn it can’t retreat so what happens?
-
They die. You would be a fool to perform that combat move, as in that example it will utterly fail as the transports will die as they cannot retreat.
Sorry, kcdzim, but that’s not right. The US transports don’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the US’ turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed. The net result is that nothing happens.
-
I wondered how this would be resolved.
I would have gone with Kcdzim’s answer as the UK units called an Amphibious landing without support and the German then replied with a scramble. I supposed that the UK troops were commited to an assault and therefore unable to retreat.
You are instead saying the Scramble prevents them even unloading; so they survive!
Wow. Thank you and again thank you Cond1024. -
are the German air able to sink US transports?
YES.
And the transports - unable to retreat, would die.
-
Garg, read Krieg’s last. We all got it wrong.
-
Woop, missed that.
What a bunch of garbage!
-
This might not go here, but do you have to have Abattlemap to play by forum? or can you just use an actual board?
-
This might not go here, but do you have to have Abattlemap to play by forum? or can you just use an actual board?
Contact Gargantua by PM and he will set you up proper, or you can ask the same question in the player help forum.
-
the fighters die if they have no valid landing space.
If you retreat, and they used 4 movement to get to the seazone of battle. They die.
Subs ONLY fight the carrier, if the carrier gets hit, or sunk, the fighters must have a space to land at withing 1 space, if not. they die too.
This is true if the carrier and fighters are defending, however, if attacking, the fighters may use whatever movement points they have remaining to land safely (if any).
-
1. I think this has been covered before, just double checking. UK/pacific or Anzac can move into French Indo China without declaring war on Japan right?
2. If Japan then wants to attack a French territory with UK/Anzac units, Japan would need to declare war on UK/Anzac in addition to France?
-
Hi JamesAleman.
Yes to both. You are right.
Suggested Topics
