It depends on which version of the rules you are playing. In the latest version of the rules, you can scramble from any air base that is on any territory adjacent to a sea zone where there is naval combat or an amphibious assault happening.
Posts made by ChocolatePancake
-
RE: England can scramble right?
-
RE: Scramble against lone transports?
Yes, you can. After one round of combat, any surviving transports would have the option to retreat (if they have a valid retreat route).
-
RE: What round 1 battle do you dread most?
I always dread the round 1 attack on Yunnan with Japan. I’ve gotten screwed by terrible dice in that battle before and it can be a big setback if that happens.
Other than that, I always really nervous in any large fleet battle in the Pacific. There’s just so much at stake.
And I completely agree with wheatbeer in dreading the SZ106 attack as Germany. Yeah, 2 subs SHOULD win most of the time. It’s those other times…
I always roll this battle first with Germany, as a kind of omen for how the dice will behave for me in the game. -
RE: Subs and scramble at amphibious
Agree, a asume that no one plays allies until the actual winning conditions have been complete (capture Berlin, Rome and Tokyo). In our current game Japan is almost destroyed but we still hope for an axis win due to victory cities on Europe side!
Correct. I was referring to the rule book victory conditions. Obviously the allies can force the axis to surrender by round 10, but actually conquering all 3 capitols is pretty much impossible. On the other hand, it is very possible for the axis to achieve their rule book victory conditions by round 10. Anyway, I guess it’s a moot point.
-
RE: The Japan Playbook
When Russia puts everything in Amur R1, I always like to take it out right away. Just delay attacking the allies until J2 or J3.
Those 18 infantry are all Russia has in the east, and there aren’t any reinforcements likely to be coming, other than the Mongolians, which really aren’t much of a threat. Generally this move hurts Russia more than it hurts Japan in my experience. It definitely makes it easier for Germany to take Russia. -
RE: Air base question
No. After you decide on all your combat moves, then the other player decides where (if anywhere) that they want to scramble. Then you proceed with all your combat, including SBR raids.
-
RE: Subs and scramble at amphibious
Yeah, I think that idea might come from the classic Axis & Allies game, in which, if I remember correctly, the rule book made a mention that each round represented 6 months of ‘real’ time.
This would mean that, going by history, the game should be winnable within 10 rounds. That can work for the Axis, but for the Allies it is pretty much impossible.
It also introduces a lot of logical problems, like why can ships only move half way across the Pacific Ocean in 6 months. -
RE: Subs and scramble at amphibious
He doesn’t even need a surface sea unit. You can always scramble from airbase to defend against an amphibious assault.
So, yes, if you are doing an amphibious assault that borders an enemy airbase that has fighters and/or tactical bombers, then you always need more than just subs to escort your transports. You’re going to need some surface warships (or airplanes of your own in the sea zone) to defeat the possible scrambling airplanes. -
RE: 2nd Edition - Russia and China and DOW with Japan.
Declaring war doesn’t really matter. If Russia attacks any Japanese controlled territory that’s adjacent to Mongolia, or Korea, then they will never get the Mongolian troops.
-
RE: Naval base repair limit?
There isn’t currently, and I can’t think of any reason why there should be.
What kind of limit did you have in mind? -
RE: Russia R1 DOW on Japan
That’s true. What you do with the Siberian troops really comes down to personal preference and strategy.
We actually had a couple of guys get into quite an argument over it once. They were each playing half the allies, and the guy playing the Europe half insisted on having the Siberian troops sent back to Moscow. Europe guy won that fight, but the Pacific guy was upset, especially when the Axis won on the Pacific side of the board that game. -
RE: Russia R1 DOW on Japan
I always DOW Japan R1 with Russia, but I never attack unless they leave Manchuria and Korea poorly defended on turn 2 or later. I just like to have the ability for my ally’s planes to land in Siberia if need be.
I like to always leave at least 12 infantry behind in Siberia. Gives the Japanese player 1 more thing to worry about, and it can be really helpful. The other 6 I send around to the other end of the China border. They tend to get there the same time the Japanese player does, and it can often stop them in their tracks before they are able to grab free territory east of Moscow.Besides, those 18 infantry, in my experience, rarely arrive in time to make a difference in the battle for Moscow. And sending them away basically gives Japan free money from eastern Russia, and can be a real blow to the Russia economy.
-
RE: Long range aircraft - why bother?
I agree that naval bases are purchased less often than air bases, but I probably buy one about every third game. When playing Japan, and you have just taken India and have your fleet sitting in SZ 39, you can ruin the allied player’s day by building a naval base in Kwangsi or Hainan and getting back to Japan 1 round earlier. Sometimes when playing the allies, I’ll buy one in Norway after capturing it. When you need one, you need one and they are worth every penny.
-
RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
If the USSR is at peace with Japan, then they couldn’t have moved into allied occupied Korea in the first place, as they were not yet part of the allies on the Pacific half of the board.
-
RE: G40e 1.0: The Game.
I do like a lot of your ideas, and I think they would be interesting to try out.
That said, it seems to me you’ve weakened the allies and Italy (which is necessary given that they and Germany move together). Not allowing any allied units to enter Russia is a huge disadvantage for the allies. You’ve given Russia some nice bonuses to help counter that, but it sill seems like it will be easier for Germany + Italy to conquer Russia, as adding the Italian units to the German punch seems like it will outweigh the additional at-war income of Russia. Also, the the strategic rail movement is a huge advantage for Germany ,getting units to the eastern front more quickly, and will will be a huge boon for Japan conquering the mainland if they build industrial complexes in Kiangsu and Kwangtung.
Only having a minor in India is crippling for the allies in the pacific, and a +10 bonus for conquering all of China is ridiculous.
You’ve at once weakened the allies in the pacific significantly, and at the same time made it much easier for Japan to take all of China + India, and added massive incentive for them to do so.Also, I’m not sure that the neutral blocks are quite balanced, as there is no reason for the allies to not conquer all of South America for the extra income.
A couple of minor notes:
SZ 4 and Amur seem unrelated for that Russian N.O.
There’s no submarine in SZ96, but there is a destroyer. -
RE: Not understanding US income in Global 1940.
Yeah, they get their full territory value when not at war (52 I think), then when at war they get their bonuses, +25 in total if they control the Philippines, +20 without them.
And yes, the idea is that they build up as much as possible before war starts, but remember, they only have minor industrial complexes with which to produce units, limiting them to max of 9 units per turn.
-
RE: Long range aircraft - why bother?
Yeah, for Gibraltar, turn 1 with UK, put the whole fleet in SZ 92, build the airbase there, and fly your fighters down to Gibraltar. It basically makes it almost impossible for Italy to get control of the Mediterranean, because they will probably never be able to build enough of a fleet to overcome the UK fleet + the 3 scrambling fighters. They can either keep their fleet in port (if they want to keep it alive), or suicide it in an effort to get Egypt, which, if you play the UK right, will be impossible for them to hold very long. If you have to fly the planes out to kill the Italian fleet, then getting them back doesn’t matter as much, as they will have already achieved their objective. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s very valuable in containing Italy. It’s certainly not the only way to achieve that though, and may not even be the best way.
In Kwangsi, it allows you to move the Japanese fleet south to take control of the money islands without leaving your SZ 6 undefended, and puts a ton of pressure on China & India. It makes it possible to do a turn 3 India crush if you want. It basically keeps the allied fleet far away if they want to keep it alive.
-
RE: Strategic Rail Movement - an idea.
I still think that would be unbalanced. German tanks would be 2 turns from Moscow (as opposed to 3 now), India infantry can reach Yunnan in 1 turn, etc.
It would be interesting to play around with as a home rule, but I don’t think it will work as a regular rule. -
RE: Long range aircraft - why bother?
I agree that the long range aircraft technology is not that great (though it does have its uses, I would much rather get, say heavy bombers).
Airbases though, are very useful. An airbase on Gibraltar can make it an extremely potent British fortress that is almost impossible for Italy to take, and it allows the UK to attack any ships that Italy sends against Egypt (unless Italy can take Syria, Trans-Jordan, Egypt and Alexandria all at once).
A Japanese airbase in Kwangsi allows the whole Japanese airforce (if stationed there) to hit anywhere in China, Calcutta, and hit the Japan sea zone (SZ 6) if the USA player comes in there. This is a huge strategic advantage for Japan. I build this airbase almost every single time I play Japan.
And those are just two of the most commonly built airbases.
Even the existing airbases have their uses, like strategic bombers in Western USA being able to hit SZ 6 and land in, say an allied controlled Korea (often times Russia will grab it, or a USA amphibious assault will), making life more difficult for Japan. Or strategic bombers based in Southern Italy being able to hit either Moscow or London.
Again, just some of the more common uses. -
RE: Strategic Rail Movement - an idea.
That would result in a massive change in the Eastern front. Being able to move infantry/artillery from Berlin & Moscow to the front in one turn is huge.
India would love not having to build fast movers to reinforce Yunnan. Building super-speedy units out of Kiangsu would being very beneficial to Japan as well.Also, the regular rail movement originally proposed is just way too complicated and easy to make mistakes with.