Posts made by wicked_caitiff

Once I’ve built a german MiC in Argentina to attack Australia, as a result of a thorough test with AI opponents ;-) 
And to stay with the by-topic: Germans in Canada/Alaska look odd, but it’s interesting to sort out were in Hudson Bay to land and which sea areas are out of reach for the US fleet.

Win by time is no victory  8-)
Usually, we discuss tactical mistakes and crucial points after the match: the way how a match is won even more important than who won.  And usually, we never get that far because it’s already 6 am and we didn’t reach Korea yet…

Dunno where’s the problem. I really like a “>50 TT / 90 Inf Finale” on the shores of Japan. Bought some extra dice though…
Honestly, it’s 4 vs. one. After an attack of 30 russian planes and the bombardment of some ANZAC BBs, the US can bring a huge invasion force built up in no time, and  the UK can easily walk in if necessary.

I have to admit I didn’t evaluate the market before choosing A&A, just played Europe first Edition once it in the noughties and took the chance to get it after thinking of it in the nineties while playing Shogun - but these games were hard to find in rural Europe without internet 20+ years ago…

And now I think: A complete Global setup table is a peace of art.

Do you prefer ships to tanks? than try Pacific.
If you like large land campaigns or live in Europe anyway, the European board is your choice.

Finally you take both to be happy ;-)

Still waiting for the 8.8 Flak (AAA) to get at least 1 defence against all attackers additional to their air capabilities ;-)

Rulebook P2E, Page 13 (Chapter CM): If you are sharing a sea zone with surface warships (not submarines and/or transports) belonging to a power with which you are at war, this situation requires you to do one of the following:
• Remain in the sea zone and conduct combat,
• Leave the sea zone, load units if desired, and conduct combat elsewhere,
• Leave the sea zone, load units, and return to the same sea zone to conduct combat (you can’t load units while in a hostile
sea zone), or
• Leave the sea zone and conduct no combat.
Once these sea units have moved and/or participated in combat, they can’t move or participate in the Noncombat Move phase of the turn.

According to the rules, 1-3 is combat move+combat, but 4 would be a non combat move.
Not sure if it would have been emphasised that the leaving takes place exceptionally in CM phase. Also the last sentence would be clearer if it stated “In all of these cases, units can’t move or participate in the Noncombat Move phase of the turn.”

Edit: I have to apologize, this exeption is actually printed on page 12:
However, units can’t end their movement in friendly spaces during the Combat Move phase except in four instances:
(…)
• Units moving from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as their combat move.
  A sea zone into which defending air units may be scrambled in reaction to an amphibious assault (see “Scramble,” page 15) may be treated in the same way as a hostile sea zone for this purpose.
So scrambling fighters also block NCM this way.

Page 22 (Chapter NCM):
Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved, offloaded, or were involved in combat during the Combat Move or Conduct Combat phase.
So this means having an enemy vessel in the seazone at the beginning of the turn does automatically mean battle activity for every naval unit in that SZ, including SSs.

@WILD:

On page# 13 and 14 in the 2nd edition rule book it gives you the choices you have when you start your turn in a hostile sz (because enemy build a warship). These would all be done in the combat phase.
…
4) Leave the sz and conduct no combat.

Are you sure this has to happen in combat move phase? Rulebook does not state that in this paragraph.
Because if it doesn’t, there won’t be any problem in moving them in NCM with loading cargo after the SZ was made friendly in combat phase.

Variation of that question: For it’s not only firepower, how many straw to burn should be within the attacking army? As Kreuzfeld already stated, the quality of the lost units is crucial for the firepower (and for the foregoing campaign, as I had to learn…).
Something like “deploy at least 50% of the number of defending units as affordable victims”?  Or even 100%? It depends on the own firepower though…

@diabo:

some transports which he unloads in germany. except one guy going to poland.

One guy, i.e. Infantry?
You know a transport merely can disembark units to one territory per turn, which ends its turn immediately. So you can’t take a transport, ship one unit to Germany via SZ113 and sail on to SZ114 to put an infantry to poland.
You can’t even put one to Western Germany and one to Germany in the same turn from the same transport…
Just a reminder ;-)

Replayed the “pointlessly broken” KUSAF-attack (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29689.0), which left China comfortably free with an income of 29 IPC. China can place its newly purchased units in every Chinese controlled territory they want.
Is there a maximum amount of units they can place per territory? If they buy after saving 3 rounds, they may put 29 Inf to Manchuria or Szechuan…

Don’t forget, unlike France or Norway surrender was no survivable option for the Russian population. Hitler made very clear quite early that he considered them “subhuman” and GeStaPo and SS did their deadly job in notorious german thouroughness in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. So I’m not sure if taking the capital would have ended the war in Russia - perhaps the regular war, but not the need for massive amount of troops there. I’m pretty sure the long term need and lack of administrational staff and police for this vast area with millions of deads causing disobeyance and riots would have been more than a pain in the a… for the Reich.
The Nazi dictature based on nationalism including/featuring hatred towards Jews and Slaws, denunciation and a powerful police - that wouldn’t have worked there. But on second thought, they might have been able to get some russians to help and give some incentives like surviving a month longer… It would have been hell on earth.

In the end Hitler had not enough of his beloved true blood Germans to realize his megalomaniac ideas - you don’t make many friends by hating them constitutionally.

I prefer 2 spaces to 0, but I’m just used to 1 space.  It’s an interesting idea.  But it looks kinda weird, like an emphasis on the full stop, say “full stop with a hammer”…

For those sentences I want people to take time to think about, I prefer carriage return :-)

Hmm, 8 IPC loss for Japan is important for an invasion of Tokyo, they’re about to stack 30+ Inf there…
FIC is also a nice spot for an IC.
It’s right, CV+2Ftr equals the IPCs for 6 Subs - but as Japan lost all its fleet by now, we’re in the final rounds anyway. Any chance to get a nuke?

77 years ago, the last “peaceful” summer evening in Germany and Poland.
Well, those with the “wrong” religion, ancestry, or political opinion lost peace somewhat earlier.

@wittmann:

b. Anzac can’t bomb India. (That is not cricket!). Not sure what you mean about UK’s 12 income. Was that just an example?

:-D
Of course I mean India controlled by Japan.

Situation: Japan sweapt through China and southeast asia and even got India, just before US got them very busy in Korea.
UK was crushed, but ANZAC was left quite healthy, so ANZAC managed to recapture most british territories and thus received 12 IPC for Borneo, Malaya, Kwangtung, Shan State, and Burma. Now standing at the Indian border, they are about to cripple their own economy by liberating India. Next Problem: UK must wait 3 turns to move any unit after liberation by ANZAC: Anzac is last in order, followed by J, US, China, then a mere IPC collection phase for UK, another complete round, UK buys units but must wait to place them at the end of their turn, another complete round, and finally UK may move a unit. Any suggestions which move’s better: leave a weak Japanese India and build a CV with 2 ftr (3 x 12 IPC) or liberate India but receive no help from UK for at least 3 turns?

Every scrambling action must be decided after combat move phase, but before combat phase. The results of any battle in this phase occure too late to have influence on your scrambling choices. In fact, those battles are considered to happen simutaneously.

ANZAC and UK:
a) If ANZAC liberates Borneo from Japan, and India’s still british, ANZAC can’t claim any IPC. But if Japan conquers India the very next turn, does ANZAC still have no claim there, as there have been no IPCs “harvested” yet?
b) If ANZAC liberates India, ANZAC loses all IPC income it receives for each british territory they liberated from Japan. Is there a rule to obey for ANZAC as being part of the Commonwealth or can they just keep on convoy disruptions and strat bomb facilities in India and keep those neat little british 12 IPCs (and piss off the UK player…)?
c) (global) What happens if the Netherlands are liberated from Axis in Europe? Any influence on DEI?

My practical experience: Ask and pay a pro to do the job. It may be expensive, but most times the outcome is worth every penny and you save time and temper… Aren’t there any detailing guys or car painter shops who are used to put those foils on cars perfectly? That’s a 10 min job for them, I reckon.

But anyway, that 113 MB Map is really awesome. Pity my table’s too small…