worst rule ever...

[Octopus]

What do you guys think of an AA blocking a tank blitz?

I personally think it is a terrible rule on the sole basis the unit cannot be destroyed (unless sunk on a transport). It becomes a nearly permanent road block. The rule seems to only aid Russia since there are no other places where armor is a factor where AA exists.

Yes, I have 17 Armor that cannot take Russia because a lone AA is blocking the path.

Most unfortunate.

Oh, I think having to own the Suez Canal prior to moving through it is also a sham. Yes, that only hurts the Axis.

[critmonster]

what about subs not being able to stop defenseless transports? Or subs not being allowed to stay on the surface during a battle that does not include enemy destroyers?

[Octopus]

aye, that is terribly hokey.

the defending submarine should have the ability to decide if it wishes to participate in combat or not (naturally unless a destroyer is present).

why would a unit be forced to not partake in combat when it has the ability to?

i can only assume the designers do not like submarines much (or worse, don't want anyone else to like them either).

so let me see if I get this straight.....

a submarine cannot stop a defenseless transport, but an AA gun can stop a tank blitz.

wtf?

i am complaining because i can see how this breaks gameplay.

[Fighter commander]

i would agree with you on the aa gun stopping blizting is stupid, and should be corrected. However, you can of course always create a houserule disregarding the current rules on the area. But as an improvement in the next version you second your suggestion

[Octopus]

yes, house rules are always up for consideration.

I have this wierd habit of finding (what I consider) imperfections in games that break the play. In this case, the best Russian defense might be to possess a large stack in either Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine. What ever territory the stack is not in, put 1 or 2 infantry with the AA gun and the defense of Moscow is impervious to armored blitz.

The industrial complex stopping a blitz I understand. It is most often the target of an attack and complexes don't move so you can count on going around them.

I would love to know the thought process behind the AA gun stopping a blitz (what led to the decision of making that rule).

[Romulus]

Mmm... I am not sure that is such a broken rule. Also a single infantry inhibit the blitz and cost only 3 IPC while a AA gun cost 6 and, moreover, beiing indestructible is captured togheter with the territory. Yes the tanks have to stop but they have also the additional defense of the AA gun. So if you want to counter attack in such territory your aircraft may be shoot down by your ex AA gun...

I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz. The problem maybe is why the AA gun are indestructible?

[Krieghund]

I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz.

Bingo.

[Romulus]

I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz.

Bingo.

Even if is only my opinion it is right because simplicity avoid complication and misinterpretation!

[Veqryn]

I would only be ok with your idea if all russian territories that had an AA also got an additional infantry too to make up for the new rule change.

[Panzer Leader]

what about subs not being able to stop defenseless transports? Or subs not being allowed to stay on the surface during a battle that does not include enemy destroyers?

I am not sure where you reading this from but I check the rules again for AA50 under submarine page 16 of 16, and the only thing it mentions in reference to defending submarines is that -if there is a attacking destroyer present they have to roll a defense roll and cannot use the submerge option instead. If there is no attacking destroyer then they can submerge instead of defending.
This is from the rule book: "If there is at least one attacking destroyer on the battle board, defending submarines will participate in combat during the defending units fire step of the General Combat sequence. Otherwise, each defending submarine may submerge or fire. Remove each submerging submarine from the battle board and place it on the gameboard in the contested sea zone. Roll one die for each remaining defending submarine."
So I interpelate this as been subs can stay in a battle if they want, but they must stay if there is an enemy destroyer attacking. If you attack a sub without a destroyer then your ships must withstand a free sneak attack and remove any casulties before they get to fire. If they miss then the sub can now sneak attack again or submerge. Also remember planes canoot attack subs without a destroy to help and subs cannot attack planes so they hit only boats.

Because subs do not control a seazone, a transport can legally move in and unload ignoring the sub into an enemy territory using amphibious assault. On the subs turn it now can attack the transport. I know it seems to not make sense that the transport can move past the sub, but the transport actually does not see the sub, therfore it ignores it.

Hope this helps a little.

[allboxcars]

I personally think it is a terrible rule on the sole basis the unit cannot be destroyed (unless sunk on a transport).... It becomes a nearly permanent road block.
Yes, I have 17 Armor that cannot take Russia because a lone AA is blocking the path.

Permanent road block??? Mmmm blocks a blitz but not movement.
So you move into the space and - boom there goes the dynamite baby - congratulations you're the proud owner of some AA.
Done.
 
My question is who falls back and sacrifices AA when it's only useful in the actual target of an air attack / SBR?

[Corbeau Blanc]

I know subs cannot block sea units but what about a lone transport?
Does a transport can stop enemy movement?

Also, I've been told a factory IC also prevented blitz like an aa gun... that's true?

[Romulus]

Subs and transports do not block sea movements and do not prevent amphibious operations.

It seems realistic. Non combat ships have a difficult time in trying to stop a squadron of warships. Subs usually stay below the water looking for targets and so they do not even try to stop enemy movements. They lurk in the shadow, silently waiting their chance (i.e. their turn) to hit.

IC block blitz, and I see no reason for which they should not.

[allboxcars]

IC block blitz, and I see no reason for which they should not.

Definitely. Nobody runs thru a Built-Up Area.

[Lynxes]

It seems realistic. Non combat ships have a difficult time in trying to stop a squadron of warships. Subs usually stay below the water looking for targets and so they do not even try to stop enemy movements. They lurk in the shadow, silently waiting their chance (i.e. their turn) to hit.

Not really, only if transport and merchant ships were escorted could they escape subs with any sort of odds. Transports alone shouldn't be able to ignore subs, the only way I can explain this is that they thought it's a rare occurence and they didn't want to complicate the game. I've seen it happen in games and it's a frustrating sight!