Posts made by ColonelCarter

It’s on page 22:
@rulebook:

Immediately before the combat is resolved, any defending artillery
present in the attacked territory can make a pre-emptive strike against all of
your offloading land units and fighters as they come ashore.
…
Surviving attacking units then land in the territory and move on to land combat.
The land combat is conducted in the same manner as any other land combat with one exception. If there was no sea battle, any battleships that are in the sea zone(s) from which units offloaded from transports can conduct offshore bombardment.

The bolded segment states that there’s no difference to the land combat with the remaining land units preventing the artillery from defending. If there were, they would have to specify “don’t put defending artillery on the battle board” or something along those lines.

I agree with basically everything Argothair said, but
@Argothair:

because it allows you a guaranteed opportunity to take all of Russia’s income,

Since the errata, the Central Powers have the option to decline the armistice if it triggers. Having the rules in place now only favors the CP since they can take the armistice if it would save them from having to fight a ton of Russians, or decline it because Russia has ruined its army trying to prevent a CP-favorable armistice.

Yes, this is fine. A transport can pick up anywhere along its movement (even from multiple territories), but is only allowed to offload once per turn, and cannot load more after unloading. That’s probably the “bridging” you’re thinking of–trying to “walk” an unlimited amount of units over a transport that doesn’t have to move.

I made a rough representation of vanilla A&A 1914 a while back to test out strategies; here’s the version updated for 1.9.
A lot of stuff doesn’t function automatically, read the Game Notes first.

Note: this is not Flashman’s map/rules. If you were wanting that, sorry to disappoint.

world_war_i_1914.zip

The US can choose to fight the battles in either order, but it won’t matter. Defending planes that lose the carrier holding them in combat get 1 movement to land after the Combat phase is done, so at that point it would already be determined if they had a friendly place to land regardless of the battle order. The landing is done after the whole combat phase to avoid confusion of planes getting to defend twice, which they don’t.

@Bravehart:

Going to continue here in this page:

Off loading Transports, can you off load troops to more than one territory IF your transport is within other territories in that SZ? For example… SZ 36 in Pacific, can you do a multi drop off your choice, in FIC and Kwangsi?

BH

A single transport can’t offload into multiple territories, but if you had more than one transport, they could each offload into separate territories (i.e. one offloads 2 units into FIC, another offloads 2 units into Kwangsi)

That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.

1. Yes, but both sides will have the option to submerge their sub before any shots are fired (as neither side has a destroyer to prevent the other from submerging), so it’s unlikely that the defender will stay to fight the lopsided battle.

2. Yes, subs from opposing sides can share a SZ.

3. Yes. Russia doesn’t get the NO if there is at least one German, Italian or Japanese sub in SZ125, even if they are not at war with the power owning the sub.

4. No. You need a surface warship. They are destroyers, cruisers, battleships, and aircraft carriers, so no subs or transports count.

5. Yes. UK shares all tech between the two economies. Also, both sides can contribute when buying tech dice. For example, UK Europe can spend 4 IPCs and UK Pacific can spend 1 IPC to purchase 1 tech die.

6. Yes. If AAA are the only unit(s) remaining on the defender’s side and the attacker still has at least one unit, they are automatically killed and the attacker conquers the territory, if applicable. Note that the attacker does not get a chance to retreat from only AAA, so you can potentially strand attacking ground units that were intending to retreat by taking all non-AAA as casualties and leaving only AAA to be auto-destroyed.

Hope this helps!

Interpretation B is correct.

I like to consider loading and unloading as part of the transport’s movement. Transports can grab units from coastal territories that satisfy certain conditions (see below) and can drop them in another coastal territory at the end of their movement.
This interpretation falls through for multi-national transporting, but that also has other exceptions and I can still grasp the concept.

“Loading/unloading uses up the complete movement of a Land unit for this Turn” means that to load, you need all your movement points, i.e. a multi-move unit can’t move before getting picked up by a transport. Similarly, unloading also uses all movement points, i.e. a multi-move unit can’t move after unloading, even if it was loaded on a previous turn.

@Shin:

I don’t know why HBs would even matter.  Your bombers effectively attack on 5 rather than four now.

yay?

He’s talking about old heavy bombers. The ones that rolled 2 dice @4 and kept both results. Those were pretty much game over.

The advantage is that you kill Philippines material that otherwise would escape, and vastly reduce British income a turn earlier while ending up with the same amount in captured territory as you would get from the peace NO with the US. Earlier FIC factory, too.

This comes at the cost of a stronger China and ANZAC, (US loses as much material as they gain in money, and money is worse than initial units) but those ANZAC IPCs aren’t as big an issue if you have a strong presence in the south Pacific. Trading your navy down with the US early lets ANZAC’s smaller force be significantly more effective against the whittled down Japanese.

Alternatively, skip the Hawaii attack. Sends fleet in the wrong direction and isn’t an amazing IPC gain material-wise.

I think y’all are underestimating the amount of US material required to hold SZ6. It’s an insane amount if you aren’t going to use blockers, and using blockers bleeds you in Sub for DD trades every turn. Any planes Japan builds on Japan can attack the SZ as well as their whole fleet and airforce in China. The most productive part is the threat to advance to SZ6: that forces the IJA to stay in range to counter, preventing it from finishing off China/India without a one-time use airbase.

The US will basically never have threat of actually taking Japan: mass transports are incredibly telegraphed and mean no naval reinforcements will be coming. To actually get it done you need to bomb Japan into the ground while doing so, and there’s no way Germany won’t have the game in the bag by then. Japan can even just gun for Egypt if need be with all the US resources going into the capture of the island.

I think there might be one kind of in development but not as a huge priority, since it requires adding new mechanics to the TripleA engine.

I made a representation of it for myself with what mechanics worked, but a) it required some bit of editing for the stuff that didn’t and b) I lost the most recent version that was a significant upgrade in terms of editing-intensiveness. And I haven’t been motivated to remake it to that point. I might be wrong, but contested territories not producing and single round combat might have been some of those features.

@SubmersedElk:

There is no sea battle on ANZAC’s turn in that scenario, so there’s nothing to scramble against. You can’t scramble against an opponent’s fleet without a combat move into the adjacent SZ.

You can scramble against amphibious assaults however, whether there are combat units or not.

@Auswanderersland:

japan owns carolinas, has 2 troops 3 fig on island.

america takes carolina island waters, but no amphibious assault.
non combats 4 transports loaded with anzac troops.

on anzac turn they attack from trans with no bs/cru

Does Japan get to scramble and auto kill us trans?  how does this work?

If Japan scrambles and ANZAC has no sea/air units to fight the sea battle, the transports are prevented from offloading, but not destroyed. The battle would end with essentially nothing happening.
If Japan doesn’t/can’t scramble, the units can conduct the amphibious assault.

Destroyers aren’t forced to stop in a SZ with subs in it. Subs don’t make a SZ hostile, so any sea units can travel through it without problem.

Retreating aircraft stay in the territory/sea zone the battle was in–they need to use their remaining movement points to land in the noncombat phase, just as if they had won the battle. If they have none left (fighters/tacs expecting to win the battle with a carrier, for example), then the plane(s) will be removed at the end of the noncombat phase.

@eames57:

@ColonelCarter:

Some I can think of:

-AAA is fired before bombing planes split up, allowing Tactical Bombers to be lost instead of Bombers when bombing an IC and an airfield/naval base

I’ve been doing this one wrong, it seems.  But Triple A allows you to select tacs as fodder in an IC SBR.

TripleA isn’t perfect. Some other flaws with it I can think of on the spot are activating a friendly neutral not stopping movement for mechs/tanks, and mechs being allowed their second movement in noncombat if they captured a territory with their first movement in combat.

Seems overly complicated to me. Also, you can end up getting worse luck than dice (at least in smaller battles); for your 2 inf, 1 bomber example:

Dice: 5/6 * 5/6 * 1/3 chance of 0 hits –- 23.15%

Fudge dice: (1/3 * 1/3) + 2 * (1/3 * 1/3)=1/3 chance of 0 hits — 33.3%

Maybe it gets balanced out by the fact that the opponent also has bad odds, but not to my fancy.

Two defending infantry not having better odds than one other than the extra hitpoint seems…off to me as well.