AA fire at non-attacking aircraft?

Okay, fair enough. If you only attack WRu and buy 3 arm you should generally be safe against a Kar stack on G1 (don’t know why I listed 2 arm in my last post - I usually buy 3 unless I vacate Cau completely, in which case 5 inf art arm is also sufficient to deter a Kar stack). Perhaps attacking WRu and Belo and stacking Cau is just my fetish  :lol:

The issue with German bid units Ukr is that they project force into both WRu and Cau, so holding both quickly becomes infeasible if Germany puts some stuff in Ukr.

I just started using the gametableonline site for my A&A fix. I’m loving it as it is the same program that was on the Gleemax boards at Wizards. Now I can play A&A whenever I desire, life is good.

Honestly, I like unification of the British Fleet in SZ 30 with 1 Infantry from India.  This makes it financially worse for Japan to attack than for England to be wiped out, strategically worse for Japan to attack (since they’ll lose their air force and have to leave Pearl unattacked maybe even not take China’s fighter out) than for England to be wiped out (all those ships are generally dead by UK 2 anyway, so what have you lost?)  BUT

it really tempts Japan to try!  Furthermore, form here, you can hit E. Indies with 4 Infantry, Fighter if Japan leaves you alone, or you can hit Egypt or you can just dump the infantry in S. Africa to bolster the defenses there.

Furthermore, if you build an IC in S. Africa (which negates the risk of losing Africa and thus your paycheck and allows you to stay in the upper twenties, lower 30s) you can be a relatively annoying pain in the butt. (Once Africa is secure, you can always dump a submarine or two in S. Africa making SZ 34 a threatened zone if you want too.  Or at least pose the risk of doing so if you don’t want too.)

That said:

if I had to attack the japanese iwth England, I’d go Destroyer/Carrier to SZ 59; Fighter, Submarine to SZ 45 and land the fighter in SZ 52.  I’ve seen quite a number of Japanese attacks on SZ 52 go south because of that extra fighter.

Thankyou team. Most helpful.

Trusty

Under item #2 allied fighters cannot be allocated as a hit allocation because they are not rolling on the attack so they are ignored.

Also,  Under item #1 if your carrier is defending and has fighters from allied players they can be allocated as hits on defence and roll out as well.

of course some of this is totally bogus and is totally unrealistic.but oh well.

another way of doing this is to allocated an attacker chosen hit from any artillery or fighters rolling a one, and allowing tank hits to go against enemy armor or artillery first.

This is balanced and its been tested in my own games, but its an old idea since the 80’s.

Bombers cant do this because they are carpet bombers, while the other units are designed for targeted attacks.

You can have a sub do this on ones too as well as the battleship.

At least it would be easy to remember.

But it IS a simplification in terms of game mechanics.  And I recently LOST an argument where “game mechanics” won out over logic (see the topic Multinational Units on Attack).

Movement of each type occurs all at one time;  all combat movement occurs at once, all non-combat movement occurs after that, THEN the place units phase, then collecct income.  There is no non-combat movement of FIGs after unit placement, which the old rule REQUIRES.  That is the “simplification.”

yes but their is just one little problem

what with island bases than

i think its ok this way beacuse ,when the island bases would worth for all ,with long range aircraft you could get 8 movement with fighters which is very powerful

and the game wouldnt be that much interesting

but thats just my opininon