Sorry for the late reply, I was busy. Thanks for the information guys/gals. I thought that was right but didn’t know they could blitz if India was friendly.
For that specific instance, India was owned by Japs and Russia was attempting to nab it back for the UK [my bud].
Had one hell of a game. I ended up winning but I had to fight for it. Germany was on a leash the whole game with UK and US doing industrial bombing every turn. At one point I was only spending 23 IPCs with them. Strange game, I would cut out the legs of my bud then he would do the same next turn. It continued to go like that for the first 4 rounds. Then my bud, sitting with 6 bombers in england spent 60 ICPs to roll for super bombers. He missed, I couldn’t believe it. That one instance lost the game for him, we figured out what he would have done with it and it would have been the end of Germany. It was the turning point in the game, I didn’t know it until later.
I got a good glimpse at how to play the Allies. They seem to be an easy choice but if you don’t know how to use them your sunk. I won 2/4 games with them but only because my buds quit. Now I think I could actually win a game out right with the allies.
I can see that the Axis are at a disadvantage but I can’t really tell how a 9 IPC bid would really effect the game that much. Possibly by dropping three soldiers in West Russia before the game starts but even then I don’t know if it would really make that big of an impact.
I have a couple questions to add to this that is along the same lines.
Lets say I attacked an enemy territory that had fighters in it. The enemy retreats the fighters after the first round of combat to an adjacent, friendly territory. Then with my next combat move(within the same turn), if I wanted to blitz through that territory with a completely different set of tanks, would I have to engage those planes that just retreated? If not, then would the fighters be destroyed?
Lets say I just took a territory with UK on Norway. Germany only left an AA gun. In that same turn if I where to fly a bomber through that territory in a combat move, would the AA still be German? Would the AA get to roll against the bomber?
Fighters on defense cannot retreat.
Lets say I just took a territory with UK on Norway. Germany only left an AA gun. In that same turn if I where to fly a bomber through that territory in a combat move, would the AA still be German? Would the AA get to roll against the bomber?
If I understand your question right, then yes the AA still fires during combat move.
Example - Germany owns Nor and Kar and has an AA in Nor and troops in Kar. If you as the UK attack both and fly your planes over Nor, then yes the AA fires regardless of how the Nor battle turns out. Even if you do the Nor battle first, the AA still fires at your planes.
All Combat happens simultaneously and all Combat Moves must be made PRIOR to any battle being resolved.
Man I don’t know where I got the idea that fighters could retreat… we’ve been playing that way this whole time.
For the AA, I was pretty sure that was right but I knew that it would be an issue at some point.
Thanks for the responses.
Attacking ftrs can retreat. It is just on defense they can’t.
Man, I think this is going to be a personal “house rule”… defending fighters retreat. I just can’t imagine poring money into them otherwise.
This makes me wonder what else we’ve been messing up. I would like to get in here eventually and play with some of you, or against you lol. I guess I should really look into these rules some more.
Thanks agian.
Yea thats an AARHE idea. more realistic.
@ncscswitch:
Jen is correct.
If India was “friendly” to the units in Caucuses, then an NCM of units from Caucuses to India after WINNING in Persia is completely legal.
I thought units can’t move in both phases, except aircraft.
ARM from Caucuses that did NOT engage in combat can move in NCM and roll through the recently occupied Persia to a friendly India.
@ncscswitch:
ARM from Caucuses that did NOT engage in combat can move in NCM and roll through the recently occupied Persia to a friendly India.
So in the instance that I had, they couldn’t capture because it is non-combat that it’s moving in. I see what your saying.
Exactly.
It would have required new Combat Movement and new Combat AFTER both Combat Movement and Combat phases had already been completed if India was enemy occupied.
@ncscswitch:
ARM from Caucuses that did NOT engage in combat can move in NCM and roll through the recently occupied Persia to a friendly India.
Oh, I thought you were referring to the armor that attacked Persia.
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
yes air units can move in non-combat with remaining movement points
this is the only case where a unit can move in both combat and non-combat move
eg. fighter at UK can move to attack Norway in Combat Move, and move to Archangel with remaining movement points in Non-combat Move
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
well they have to land, so that is a non-combat move.
They can only move the remainder of their movement points during this non-combat landing portion of their movement.
So if a ftr came three spaces into a battle, it has to land one move away.
Ok, I see. For a second I thought a fighter could move 4 spaces in an attack, land and then move another 4 spaces in non-combat. We usually just complete the fighter or bomber’s moves all at once. It tends to speed things up and we never forget to move it etc.
Is there any reason not to move the fighters or bombers in this way? What I mean to say, should my buds and I be moving in attack, then wait for non-combat to land?
What I mean to say, should my buds and I be moving in attack, then wait for non-combat to land?
well aside form rules prespective,
you should wait cos the strategic situation might be different after you see the results of the combat
also, although you are not going to lose control of a territory during your turn, you may lose a carrier and then your fighters won’t be able to land in the sea zone you wanted to
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
Maybe. This is a point of confusion, as the rule is different in LHTR than it is in the box rules.
In the box rules, air units that are involved in combat finish their movement immediately after that combat is over. However, they only move to their destination at this point. They don’t actually “land” until the end of the Noncombat Movement phase, so carriers have a chance to rendezvous with them before they land. Under these rules, they may not move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement.
In LHTR, air units that are involved in combat stay in the contested space (whether they win or lose) until the Noncombat Movement phase, during which they finish their movement and “land”. Under these rules, they may move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement. (A fighter may “land” in a sea zone that doesn’t contain an eligible carrier if that sea zone is adjacent to an industrial complex from which a new carrier will be placed that turn, if there is sufficient landing space available on that carrier. The carrier is simply placed under the fighter.)
I hope this clears things up.
At least the fighters only cost 10 now, not 12. :P
And yea, I like the idea that defending fighters and bombers who survive the first round can retreat with any movement points they have left after their turn.
Alright, good info guys/gals. We’ll probably just continue to complete their movement inside the combat phase. If I saw a plane sitting by it self, I would be less likely to miss it’s destruction ;) .
I played the original when I was 11, I forgot how different it was lol.
We usually play that the fighters and or bombers can only retreat one space adjacent to the territory they’re currently in. Obviously that retreating area has to be friendly.
We’ve also been playing that the fighters/bombers could defend more than once. So if they retreated into another area, and you wanted to attack that area in the same turn then they would defend there as well. I don’t know how I feel about this though. At the risk of complicating this further I suppose it would be better to have a fighter defend on a 3 in the second defense position. Bombers would still defend on a 1, I can’t see any reason to totally nerf them.
