@taamvan OK, I’ve discussed this with Larry. I have apparently erred on the side of “realism”. While my answer made sense from that point of view, it over-complicates the rules in play. To keep the rule simple, moving units using an ally’s transport is in effect the same as moving them with your own, with the exceptions that a) they must be offloaded on a later turn than when they were loaded, and b) the transport moves on its owner’s turn, if at all. I will amend my answers above accordingly.
Krieghund
@Krieghund
Best posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
RE: Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense
It always interests me from among the many, many things that are abstracted in the broad-brush approach of these games what certain players home in on as “unrealistic”. I guess it depends on either what each individual’s pet interest is or what game mechanism they dislike the most. In any case, the bonus movement from bases is simply a very broad abstraction of the logistical advantage they provide, and, like it or dislike it, they do add an element of strategy to the game.
-
RE: Playtesters Wanted for A&A: North Africa by Renegade Games
@imperious-leader Thanks, IL. I’m already on board!
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
@contango said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):
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?
The rules say that allied units must remain on the transport for a round before offloading, even if the transport doesn’t have to move, strongly implying that the transport “moves within the sea zone” during the ally’s turn between the moving power’s turns. Applying that principle disallows a move such as this.
Yes, but loading must occur before offloading, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.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?
While the above answer is “no”, it would be “yes” in this case. Since the two units loaded from and offloaded to the same territory, it would be OK. Of course, the only reason I can think of to do that is to trade an infantry for another unit type (or vice versa). Needless to say, the unit not on the transport must load before the unit already on the transport offloads, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.
Yes.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?)
This would not be allowed at all, as loading must occur before offloading.
-
RE: Larry Harris' website had been shut down - and is back again!
I have uploaded the FAQs for all of the OOP games (Classic, Europe, Pacific, Revised, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, 1942 1st Edition) in their appropriate forums. Could someone please “sticky” them?
-
RE: Submarine withdrawal question
@the_good_captain You may withdraw some or all of them. If a group withdraws together, they must all withdraw to the same sea zone.
-
RE: Those blind U-Boat Commanders
@chaikov Yes, you’re interpreting the rules correctly.
However, WWII submarines didn’t “block” convoys. They attacked them, causing significant losses, but not stopping them altogether. Submarines were given the ability to pass through enemy units (countered by destroyers) in order to give them better survivability so they could live to attack on their own turn. This works both ways so that players can’t flood the board with cheap blockers and slow down game play.
I hope this helps.
-
RE: 2nd Edition Western Canada Misprint
@The-Lone-Wolf Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It’s in the FAQ, also available at Panther’s link above.
-
RE: When USA not at War
There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.
I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.
All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.
-
RE: Larry Harris' website had been shut down - and is back again!
The site is down for maintenance. I have no word yet on how much longer this will take, but it will return.
Latest posts made by Krieghund
-
RE: Victory Condition Question
@The_Good_Captain Hmmm. It seems when I answered this before, I neglected to consult the FAQ. The answer here is correct, and the answer in the other thread is not. I have corrected it there. Sorry for any inconvenience.
-
RE: Victory Condition Question
@kwaspek104 Germany must hold both Moscow and Berlin for another round.
-
RE: Victory Condition Question
@kwaspek104 said in Victory Condition Question:
In the original manual it states:
“To win the game, the capturing player must still be in control of the enemy capital and his own capital at the beginning of his next turn.”
But in the official FAQ it states:
“Q. I’m confused; just how many capitals must Germany capture in order to win?
A. The Germans need to capture only one capital to win, but they must also control their own capital
(Germany) at the same time. You need to control both of those capitals, simultaneously, for one
complete round (the end of your turn until the end of your next turn).”Bold emphasis mine. Is it beginning of your next turn or the end of your next turn? For what it’s worth, the original Pacific manual “said beginning of next turn.”
It doesn’t matter, because if you control them at the beginning of your next turn you will also control them at the end of it. You can’t lose control of a territory during your own turn.
The next quick question is let’s say the US player conquers Berlin but Germany captures Moscow. Assuming the German player cannot recapture Berlin in the following turn, do the Allies have to recapture Moscow to officially win the game? Or does the game end because the US player retains his capital? To quote the manual:
“If you are one of the Allied powers (Great Britain, United States, or Soviet Union), you must occupy Germany and hold it until your next turn. You must also control your home country. (The Soviet player must retain control of Moscow.)”
The “home country” is the questionable part. It makes it seem like only the player conquering Germany must retain his capital, and other Allied capitals are irrelevant.
That’s correct. If the US captures Berlin, it doesn’t matter what happens to Moscow.
-
RE: Couple rules/map question
@The_Good_Captain Now that’s odd. When I answered this, I was looking at the illustration of the map in the Rulebook, not at the map itself. In that illustration, the border between those sea zones meets at the border between Union of South Africa and Mozambique. However, as we can see, on the map itself, it doesn’t. Interesting. In any case, you’re right, the answer should have been “yes”.
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
@gamerman01 It doesn’t say it explicitly, but the intent of combat movement is to either initiate or avoid combat, so it follows that the intent must be stated when the movement is made.
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
@gamerman01 You must decide during combat movement whether or not you are ignoring enemy subs/transports.
-
RE: Couple rules/map question
@WILD-BILL said in Couple rules/map question:
Ok, Germany takes Karelia. I know that German output of units for the captured IC is capped at 3 (IPC value of Karelia). If Russia takes it back, does it permanently stay at 3 units, or can Russia still build unlimited units there because it was an orig Russia IC at the beginning of the game?
Would be the same question for any orig IC or Capital IC, once captured, then liberated back to original owner. Does the IC have unlimited production, or is it capped at IPC value of territory because it traded hands?
Sorry if this was covered in the rules or support docs.
ICs always have full production capacity for their original controllers.
One other quick map question:
Does the Union of South Africa touch 3 sz’s? I’m talking about the small section on the west side of S Africa that appears to be adjacent to a third sz. So does the sz between Madagascar and Kenya/Rhod also connect to S Africa.No.Yes. -
RE: Allied forces potentially trapped in Russia post-RR can still fight
@SuperbattleshipYamato That’s why we called them “shared” instead of “contested”. They needed a different name because their rules are different.