LOL, that person definitaly played to much RISK!
'cause in RISK you can do the move you are talking about, but not in A&A…
you can see it on the left of the chart of every axis and allie:
first you have combat move
then you have conduct combat
LOL, that person definitaly played to much RISK!
'cause in RISK you can do the move you are talking about, but not in A&A…
you can see it on the left of the chart of every axis and allie:
first you have combat move
then you have conduct combat
if you have problems getting a good fleet in the water 'cause the other player has a lot of fighters while you have lots of IPC’s?
One way to go: you buy fighters, too…
say, you have 60 IPC’s for G? you buy 6 of them!
the next turn you buy 3 AC’s… (totalling 16x3 = 48 IPC’s) (and maybe one transport, too :-P)
since you can allocate fighters directly on a newly built AC, the fighters are deployed immediately in a sea zone!
so, your buys in 2 turns match about 10 figs!!! and I think he can’t buy 10 figs in 2 turns, right? :-P
another way to go?
just spent NOTHING in one round!!! this isn’t done frequently, but you are going to have a lot of IPC’s to spend in one turn (so you will have a massive fleet in the water in one turn)
same example? say, 60 IPC’s for G? waiting 1 turn gives you 120 IPC’s to spend… that’s 5 BB at once! or 3 loaded AC’s…
should he have more then 10 figs at the moment of deploying your fleet in the water? (I don’t know this one out of experience :-o)
then do a combination of both possible things:
just buy 2 rounds of figs (so, 12 figs in total) then spent nothing one round and the next turn buy at least 6 AC’s)
in 4 rounds you have bought yourself one massive fleet of 6 loaded AC!!! and this fleet has not been in the water subject to fig-attacks at all!!!
6 loaded AC’s if defending match about (63+124)/6 = 66/6 = 11 losses per turn for the attacker
this defending value can be compared with about 20 attacking figs! if he has about 20 IPC’s to spend per turn he can buy two figs per turn (not much, but still annoying…), so, 4 turns x 2 figs is 8 figs: meaning, if he has 12 figs to start and you got NONE, in 4 turns your defending value has matched his attack value!
I’m not sure you will ever have to deal with this situation, but who knows…
the best thing to do for sure: take as many IPC’s you can!!!
and if you want to do it faster? take it with the same country: it’s better and easier to have one country at 70 IPC and one at 30 IPC then 2 countries having each 50 IPC’s…
By the way,
I guess my friends and I came to the same conclusion:
axis can win for sure, but they are not allowed to make ANY mistakes if allies are playing good!
if axis screw up one time, they are smashed!
allies can win more easily. they have an economic advantage to begin and if they screw up, axis come closer to the IPC value, but not to drastically.
allies have a marging to win…
so, axis may not make any mistake! while allies can make one or 2 and still win the game…
wow,
with G down to 19 IPC’s and still you made the axis win?
this means J was gigantic strong???
and wiped out R?
and got to the rescue of G after that?
interesting!!!
(you can tell me more if you want)
For the moment (if I analyze the votes), it seems to me:
A) if you do a Pearl attack: Most of the USA players would leave the Pacific and do a KGF…
B) if you don’t do a Pearl attack: Most of the USA players stay in the Pacific…
So, if you are J: make your discission: do you want to let USA stay in the Pacific? or do you want to let the USA mess with G?
Anyway,
the discussion remains…
while the original problem (involving the offloading transport being adjacent to a hostile sea zone) is resolved…
ncscswitch mentioned another way of how you can interpret the sentence in the rulebook…
he says sz2 is an adjacent hostile sz to the territory you wish to offload, so you could not load/offload in UK when your transport is in sz6.
If you look closely at the rules, I must say this is possible, while indeed:
A transport may not load or offload in a territory adjacent to a hostile sea zone, unless the enemy units consist
only of submerged submarines
in the example: A transport (in sz6) may not offload in a territory (UK) adjacent to a hostile sea zone (sz2)
But: this is nowhere near common sense!!!
So, i believe the best way to interpret and play the discussed rule is:
A transport may not load or offload in a territory while this sea zone is still hostile, unless the enemy units consist
only of submerged submarines
Hello,
Yesterday I was wondering…
I know about the discussion of the G1 built of 1 AC or 2 (some say 3) trannies in the Baltic…
What if G1 builds 5 transports (40 IPC’s) for the Baltic fleet…
OK, I admit: this puts the eastern front much in danger!!!
Depending on what UK does?
would there be an opening for G to invade UK in G2 if UK doesn’t make defensive buys?
UK1 can buy:
3 armor and 5 infantery (best defensive units he can buy at a limit of 8 producing units)
he can move his canadian armor to UK
so he could have: 7 inf, 1 art, 5 armor, 2 figs, 1 bomber.
he can put his BB and his remaining trannie in blocking position and he gets support from the Russian sub…
UK can recieve 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig and 1 bomber from USA as well (moving their destroyer and 2 trannies to UK)
so, if they put all these units together, it’s a no attack situation!
But if they don’t!!!
maybe it’s a party…
now, what can G do? you can overkill both fleets with much ease with support of your AF and your BB in the med that can reach the UK destroyer and the 2 trannies.
I’m mostly rambling ideas here…
I know there is probably no cohesion of any sort :-)
and most likely I’m forgetting important things…
but feel free to adjust my fluid of thoughts…
Once you killed the UK and USA fleet, you rule the Atlantic for now, probably even with 3 or 4 trannies (maybe more).
Problem is, what to do with it?
attacking UK is no option any more (it’s a fortress already)
but did the G1 buy do any good do you suppose?
'cause you FORCED UK and USA to make a defense stance, while you can lure their fleets into disaster…
you invest 40 IPC’s.
they lose BB, 3 trannies, destroyer (totalling 24+24+12 = 60) and you lose maybe 2 or 3 trannies (totalling 16 to 24).
(i didn’t make a calc on this)
your investment isn’t gone! you can move your fleet to the Baltic and ship large amounts of slow units deep into the Russian front at once if needed!
remember this: normally the 2 USA trannies go to Africa to help UK out! now this fleet is dead 'cause they had to fortify UK…
important drawback: the first thing you have to do on the eastern front is take a defensive stance, 'cause you will not have infantery backing you up in G1!!! (only in G2)
Anyhow. I’m wondering what this thread that surfaced my thoughts yesterday will have as reactions from you guys!
@Nix:
A transport may not
load or offload in a territory
adjacent to a hostile sea zone,
unless the enemy units consist
only of submerged submarines
LOL, the first time we played A&AR, we made the same mistake…
You believe the TRANSPORT may not be in a territory adjacent to a hostile sea zone
A better way of stating this way of thinking, would be:
‘A transport adjacent to a hostile sea zone may not load or offload in a territory’
But what it really says: the TERRITORY in which you LOAD/OFFLOAD may not be adjacent to a hostile sea zone…
:-)
so, the emphasis of the phrase of the rulebook is on ‘territory’, rather than on ‘transport’
and if you think about it: this makes MUCH more sense ;-)
(I hope I can make myself clear in a a language that isn’t my natural tongue…)
@ncscswitch:
Extrapolating…
USA trannies an AA gun from the US to somewhere in central Europe (perhaps Eastern)
Germany flies over Eastern to get to Belorussia to attack.
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
Does the AA gun fire? It is not being attacked, and the battle is between the Russian forces in Belorussia and the German AF. By your reasoning, it would not, since the United States is not being attacked, and it is not their turn.But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.
And that is the point of the UK ships in the above example… they ARE there.
By the rules, they can;t shoot (just like the German planes can;t fire into Eastern on their way to Belorussia), but they ARE there, to DO exist, and as such should be subject to being hit and, according to undispited black letter rules, the 2 players controlling the multination force CHOOSE their loses.
ncscswitch…
this is not the way it works…
Somewhere in the rulebook, you can find that you can attack only one territory…
extrapolating this, YOU should assume that only ONE territory may defend (in this situation the fact that the attacked territory has combined enemy forces present is irrelevant)…
But it is known that AA guns are an exception to this narrow way of thinking.
So, more than one territory CAN defend, while only one is being attacked!!!
(And you know this, too)
They will probably have 2 shots (one before battle and one after battle - yes, even in NON-combat they will shoot if you pass the AA gun again).
So, I believe that comparing the sea zone example with the multi-advantages of AA-fire is not a good comparison at all!
You can have more than one territory defending (with the special ability of AA), but you can only have one territory to attack!
What I try to explain: you try to compare apples with pears… but these situations are not to be compared 'cause they are TOTALLY different!
And in case you didn’t notice:
@ncscswitch:
The US is NOT a participant in the attack in any way, shape, or form.
nope, he is DEFENDING
@ncscswitch:
But that is NOT how it works. Even though the US is not being attacked, their gun gets to fire… because it is THERE.
the USA isn’t being attacked in anyway. This is mere the special abbility of the AA! and not only because ‘it is there’
Again: trying to proove your point with an example of AA guns is not a good example at all 'cause it’s totally different and a narrow way of thinking!
ps: Keep up the good works, though! I like most of your posts on the forum!!!
Come on, now. You can’t lose more than the value of the territory PER TURN… Think about it, if you destroy a factory, it is destroyed, right? No matter how much bombers you sent to destroy it… It needs time to rebuild and then you can bomb it again.
Well, actually… if you think about it…
you don’t destroy the factory… you destroy IPC’s…
meaning: you destroy Industrial Production Certificates or that many working hours per IPC
right?
so, if you destroy IPC’s this means maybe the materials to make the units are destroyed rather than the factory itself…
they have to ‘go and find’ new materials to work with, and so on…
When I read the reply posted by ncscswitsch, I noticed he gave a whole new meaning to the words ‘attacking’ and ‘defending’ units…
I remember my own debate about that:
@Axel:
- Somewhere in the rulebook you can ‘decide who is taking casualties if two or more friendly armies are being attacked…’ but the UK (in this case) isn’t being ATTACKED in the first place! so, it may not ‘defend’ as well!
I mean (this is an assumption): IF you had to declare a status to the UK in the example: ‘attacker’ or ‘defender’. what should it be?
I should definitely declare the status of ‘attacker’ to the UK because of the fact that he is also an ally!… so then we are in contradiction with the ‘multiple attacks’ rule!!!
so, my assumption is wrong (that was my point after all :-D): HE CAN NOT BE INVOLVED AT ALL!!!
But like Sime posted: Octopus has made things christal clear on this matter.
:-)
yamamato456 asked someone to start a poll whether or not to do a Pearl attack in J1…
I’m making a slightly different thread 'cause I think we can learn more about my suggested poll:
what would USA do if J1 makes a Pearl attack or not?
In the other thread (part 1) I had 5 options how the USA could react…
so, you can react at both the threads, I suppose…
Well, that’s really hard to say…
First of all: I suppose most people are thinking of a KRF for the axis, so:
as J you can do 2 things:
attack Pearl… In this case your fleet and especially your fighters will be needed to destroy the fleet overthere. This means your AF will not be helping your land troops in eastern Asia. But… the USA will need some turns to recover from this battle.
the USA can handle in 2 ways:
a) they reinforce their Pacific, so J will meet a USA fleet in a few turns. If J focuses on KRF, you can say Pearl was a good thing to do, 'cause you gave J a few turns extra to defeat important territories in Asia without interference of USA in those turns. But the question is: Didn’t you need your fighters to get those essential IPC’s in Asia in J1 and J2?
b) they retreat the remaining fleet and go to the Altantic to have a KGF. Again you can say Pearl was a good thing to do, 'cause you gave USA less defending force against G. But here, too, you can say that those fighters attacking Pearl were essential for an Asian invasion in J1 and J2…
leave Pearl and focus on Asia… you can probably take and hold those captured territories in Asia more easily, but USA has a big fleet in the Pacific.
the USA can handle in 3 ways:
a) they reinforce their Pacific, so J will meet a USA fleet in one or 2 turns. That gives J not much time to anticipate and so they would have to leave their Asian conquest in order to focus their IPC’s on naval builds. But if they build navy units, then the Asian front of J will crumble to ashes…
B) they join all Pacific ships and start island hopping… so, J’s fleet isn’t strong enough to attack the combined USA fleet and J loses essential IPC’s. J will probably have to postpone KRF if J wants to deal with USA and would have to make naval purchases…
c) they move their entire fleet to the Atlantic to have a KGF. You can focus on KRF entirely and you have to be faster then a KGF. Good luck :-)
Conclusion?
If you think you can capture AND hold important (IPC)-territories in Asia WITHOUT any help of your fighters in J1 and J2 (J3 is the fastest round they can be back to help J for a KRF…): then I suggest you go for Pearl massively!
If you think Asia will be blocked and counterattacked sincerely if you don’t use your fighters to help diminish those enemy forces, then leave Pearl be and hope they will do nothing with that fleet in the Pacific…
Anyhow, USA can build a Pacific fleet in a matter of rounds. If he does that, then your Asian front will perish eventually (whether you did a Pearl attack or not). If USA moves to the Atlantic J has no troubles at all, but G has even more…
I think a Pearl attack is better to get rid of possible USA dominance in the Pacific and to focus more on KRF in the following rounds. But I repeat: No matter if J attacks Pearl or not: success or failure of an Asian campaign (and a KRF for J) depends on what USA does with his Pacific fleet…
I voted:
“No. Allied units can never attack together, and combat losses and hits should only be from the actual combatants”
Why?
So, this is also important for ships that are built in enemy occupied territories…
Say, UK and USA occupy a sea zone with 2 ships each…
G builds 4 ships in that sea zone at the end of his turn.
If UK hasn’t moved his 2 ships in an other sea zone by the end of his combat move, then only his 2 ships attack the G fleet. The same goes for the USA fleet when attacking the G fleet in his own turn.
it would be a very weird thing to let the 4 allies ships attack in UK’s turn, especially if you know that multiple attacks are not done…
I’m totally going for aggressive and defensive at the same time…
that’s why i voted:
moderately aggressive versus G.
mostly defensive versus J.
hey, I’m from Belgium (Europe) and I re-read my rulebook yesterday…
I can confirm the things i replied earlier:
The rules in my rulebook state (maybe this is a very recent version of the book, 'cause i bought a&ar December 2006):
* Rocket strike: maximum 1 AA per territory can fire at an IC and the AA can do maximum damage equal to the IPC value of the territory. you can hit every IC only once.
So, for example, with G having two IC’s with both IPC-value of 6 or more… this is a total maximum of 12 IPC’s you can drain as UK (AA in UK and AA in Norway).
* Strategic Bombing: Every bomber who gets past the AA (first shot) can throw a die. this die is limited to the IPC value of the territory.
So, for example: if you go in with 12 bombers, and 10 of those survive: the attacker can throw 10 dice - each of which will be separately limited to the IPC value of the territory… in the worst case for G, this means 10x6 = 60 IPC lost in one allied countries turn…
I repeat: I’m only explaining what the rulebook mentions! I’m not suggesting you have to obey these rules at home or in tournaments or so… ;-)
Actually, I think that playing with the correct rules can be devastating for G, so I like it more when the totalling amount of IPC loss of a SB is limited to the IPC value of the territory (so this should be a house rule, then :-P)…
i don’t want to annoy people, but there is a thread where this has already been discussed:
(sorry)
An introduction and a question about Strat. bombing
If I’m not mistaken, you can pull the UK transport and UK AC in a position (move them to the west) where they can not be reached by J1. (you can still move your destroyer to the J transport near Kwangtung if you want).
If you can hold India and get reinforcements from Russia in the next turns…
then you can get your transport back to India, and transport some units to Borneo, 'cause the Japs will probably have moved their entire fleet in the next few turns to protect Japan from an assault of the USA.
If the allies are making a KGF, then I think UK will not hold India long and there will probably be no opportunity for UK to do this kind of island hopping…
[You CAN load and offload your transports during the combat movement phase RIGHT? I’d like to see the quote from the rulebook.
[/quote]yes, you can!
i’m not sure where you can find this in the rulebook…
but i have played a&a - the computer game (this is not the revised version, though) and there you can!
:-)
Hello there,
I believe there is a topic on this subject already: An introduction and a question about Strat. bombing