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)
-
@simon33 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
@panther said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
By the rulebook (Europe 1940 2ed, page 10):
“Friendly neutrals … … They can be moved into (but
not through) as a noncombat move by land units of a
power that is at war (see “Noncombat Move,” page 22).
This moves the territory out of its neutral status at the
end of the Noncombat Move phase”.So the answer is “No”.
You’d need to move the mech infantry and the regular infantry at the same time.
The mech infantry can’t “move through”.Can I just ask a follow on question here. I know all combat movement happens simultaneously, but does the same apply for NCM? So what stops one unit from claiming the friendly neutral while another unit moves 2 through the territory after the first unit claimed it?
Would appear to be a loophole but I don’t see why it doesn’t apply.
The neutral territory is neutral until the end of Noncombat Move Phase (see quote above).
So let’s assume an Infantry and a Mech enter the “first” neutral territory ‘together’. The Mech would not be able to “continue” its move as it may not go through the first territory, that still is neutral (until the end of NCM). -
@ussgordoncaptain said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Can German troops Enter Italian controlled eastern poland while germany is not at war with russia (and therefore collect the 5 IPC national objective)
thanks Panther
Yes, as Eastern Poland - being Italian at that time - is friendly to Germany.
-
Japan/USA/British/ANZAC question
End of round2: No war
End of Japan 3: No war
End of USA 3: USA declares war on japan
End of British/Anzac 3: No war with japanJapan 4. Will a british/Anzac destroyer block a japan attack on USA or can Japan ignore it and not declear war on British/ANZAC?
HMMMM, I think yes, they may
-
Japan can ignore it because Japan is still not at war with UK/ANZAC
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Japan can ignore it because Japan is still not at war with UK/ANZAC
good to get it confirmed! (and good to see you back in business)
-
Thank you! Feeling good.
I hope you’re not terrorizing your opponent TOO much with that. -
@oysteilo said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
End of British/Anzac 3: No war with japan
Why would any Allied Player NOT declare war on Japan during Round 3? There is no detriment to declaring war at this point and there are many positives. Don’t get it??? :shrug:
-
Right. Unless… The allied player wanted the attack on USA so that round 4 they can do the ANZAC DOW after blocking Japan transports, but that’s far-fetched. Especially with NO’s and everything.
Map?
-
I mean, I can’t think of any other reason off-hand
-
@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
Yes, subs can be ignored during combat movement and noncombat movement nor do they block loading or unloading of transports. (page 13, bottom paragraph)
The exception is amphibious assaults - by transport(s) only - over sub(s) that are in the destination sea zone (unescorted transports can go over subs in other seazones on the way) are not allowed. You just need one escorting warship (which could just be a sub) to overcome this, and you can still ignore the defending subs. (page 16 under transports)
What if you initate combat in the SZ in question, eg move a DD in to attack the sub? Can the transport still ignore the sub and load during CM? I assume not, since the SZ is not friendly anymore?
-
@myygames As long as you are loading you can ignore the sub.
-
Attacking units don’t make the SZ hostile.
-
Thanks, guys! I had that wrong in my mind, solves some issues for me!
-
Just noticed that my rules don’t have the bit about the Friendly Neutrals only moving out of Neutral status at the end of the NCM. Interesting, must have been added later.
-
Got a player asking if China can enter Burma before UK and Japan are at war. You would think they can’t, but I can’t find any rule that prohibits China from entering Burma before Japan/UK war status (looked in the FAQ that I have, too)
It looks like all the rules regarding China/UK/Japan and at war issues are that Allies entering or flying over China is considered an act of war by Japan, but not vice-versa.
Am I missing something? It seems wrong that China and UK can share a territory when UK is not at war with Japan. Thanks
-
No, you don’t miss anything.
China and UK are allied from the beginning of the game. The Burma (and Kwangtung)-exception allows Chinese movement into (only) these (allied) UK territories. That is the rule that is part of the “China Rules” and this is totally independent from any status of war/political situation between UK and Japan or whomever, as you pointed out correctly.
So this actually isn’t a rules question but rather a question of “game design”, that maybe @Krieghund has an answer to.
-
@gamerman01 There is nothing unusual about this situation. Neither China nor UK is neutral, as China is at war with Japan and UK with Germany and Italy, so they are free to occupy each other’s territories. However, as you pointed out, UK (or any other Allied power) can’t move into China unless at war with Japan. This is because Japan doesn’t want any interference in its affairs by European powers, but Chinese forces moving out of China are not a concern.
-
Thanks a lot guys, your speed is amazing.
I haven’t played enough games the last 4-5 years, I had forgotten the part about UK being at war (with Germany/Italy) and being allied with China from the beginning. Then it’s not weird, gotcha.Have a great day -
-
It is legal but it shouldn’t be IMO.
-
Situation: At the beginning of the UK turn, a US transport sits in SZ 110 with one UK land unit loaded on it during a prior turn. SZ 110 is adjacent to both United Kingdom and Normandy Bordeaux territories, both of which are allied owned. United Kingdom has an additional UK land unit in it. At least one of the two UK land units mentioned is an infantry.
Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?
Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?
Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)
Suggested Topics
