A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.
Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.
Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.
Hi PainState,
From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.
There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â
National Objectives - Germany - Page 36.
-
Theme: High Strategic and Propaganda Value.
It is not clear what is happening here. Wording and punctation is messy, the conjunctions “and/or” at the end doesn’t help either.It states:
5 IPC per territory if Germany controls (1)Novgorod, (2)Volgograd, and/or (3)Russia.As it is put here to me they are “chained”:
first interpretation is
You control 1, 2, and 3 (you get 15 IPC with the and conjunction)second interpretation is
You control 1, 2, or 3 (you get 10 IPC with the or conjunction - 1,2 - 1,3)Please send me a thoughtful and logic answer. Think about the conjunctions in the end (and/or) even if you are telling me that they can be conquered separately, explain the why of the conjunctions.
Thank you and Regards. -
@mirkobruner i dont understand the problem, nothing is unclear here. It is 5 IPC per territory, so its 5,10 or 15 depending on how many of the three you control
-
@oysteilo Thanks, I don’t understand the and/or conjungtions. Explain please.
-
@mirkobruner i think the “or” refers to the possible scenario where you control Russia, but not control novgorod and volgograd. Or you control russia and one of the two others
-
“And/or” means that the list may be interpreted either way, as either an “and” or an “or”. For instance, “A and/or B” means the same as “A, B, or both A and B”, whereas “A or B” strictly means one or the other, but not both, and “A and B” means only both. In the case in question, the objective is awarded as long as any combination of some or all of the three territories is controlled.
-
@Krieghund Thanks, but then they should have worded it: controls any of these territories. In this way It is like if I was saying to you: in order the bake a cake You need Eggs, Strawberry, and/or Cinnamon.
-
@mirkobruner I see you are in London.
How long have you been playing A&A?
We play in Derbyshire on a Sunday once every three months ( not Global though). Is that too far for you to travel . Is A few miles south of Derby. -
@Wittmann Unfortunately It is too far from where I Live. We have a group on FaceBook called the London Fighters and Play every now and then. If it happens for you to find yourself in London join us for the fight. Next Global Game is set for the 24th of November 2019. Regards.