Topics created by Simon98v

@The-Pripet-Martian said in General strategy question:

For example, 3 defending INF can be expected to get one hit per combat round. If you send in enough planes to ensure you’ll kill all 3 enemy INF, you only need to send 2 INF in to secure the territory.

According to probability, yes, but in practise, if you really need that territory, I’d go in with atleast 3 inf. Hitting 2 with 3 inf on def is not too uncommon. Hitting 3 is rather unlikely.

On top of that it also depends who will earn from a war of attrition. If I do, I go, no worries. If I don’t, I won’t, unless it’s for clear strategical and tactical purposes (like your opponent not being able to land planes in a stack next to your Capital).

@simon98v said in [1942 2nd ed.] Suggestion for a setup change:

Russia: Add a bomber to Karelia, remove the factory there
UK: Add 2 infantry to India
US: Remove 1 transport from sz 11, but make US gain a full turn of non-combat moves
This will help the US preserve some of its starting fleet, save some of the troops in China, make Russia a little stronger vs Germany and help the UK hold India for longer. Thoughts?

It totally imbalanced toward allies… If you play OOB ( not LHGC version) this would track toward allied advantage. To balance you start with LHGC, and move existing units around for both sides, not just add 20 IPC to allies.

@Simon98v:

…

If I interpreted this correctly, a seazone containing both submarines AND transports blocks the movement of sea units. This doesn�t make any sense.

Do submarines have the ability to protect allied transports? (obviously not from air units)

Can you ignore making an attack on a seazone containing transports and submarines to make a seashore bombardment?

Don’t forget:

@rulebook:

An enemy submarine and/or transport does not block any of your units’ movement, nor does it prevent loading or offloading
in that sea zone (with one exception - see Special Combat Movement: Transports, pg. 13). As the moving player, you have the
option of attacking an enemy submarine and/or transport that shares a sea zone with you. However, if a warship chooses to sink
an unescorted transport, that warship must end its movement in that sea zone. It is possible that some units may stop to attack
while others continue moving through the sea zone.

This should answer all your questions.

I think two subs to 14 is definitely the way to go. Sink a carrier and not have to fight the fighter!

I also think Africa is not worth the effort for Germany, so its worth dumping a unit in Gibraltar is worth taking away a UK fighter. Even though it’ll cost you the transport, if you’re not going to go for Africa, its an acceptable loss. (I even sometimes tank the armor from Africa and put it in Gibraltar. Sure I’m stranding a tank instead of any infantry, but its a tank that won’t to any more than have a 50-50 chance of knocking out an allied infantry when it is attacked, so I might as well waste the tank instead of an infantry from Europe.)

If your strategy involves pushing Africa or the Middle East with Germany, I still think its worth going after that carrier, but better to save your transport and let that UK fighter live to fight another day.

@Faramir said in Cruisers vs fighters [House Rules]:

What would you say to cruisers attacking and defending on a 4 without changing anything else?

Is this question for me ? Then make battleship A5 D5

The thread is just below your one.

Correct, Transports do have the "Chosen Last "-characteristic…

@ruelbook:

Chosen Last: Transports can be chosen as casualties only if there are no other eligible units. Normally this will occur when
only transports are left, but it can also occur under other circumstances. For example, air units attacking transports and
submarines will hit the transports because they can’t hit the submarines without a friendly destroyer present.

… that AAA does not have.

We just had a discussion aboit this topic in the treat:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38594.msg1583593#msg1583593

You might want to look at it first.

It’s chief effect in gameplay terms is to make it harder for the Axis to build/support a med fleet in the deep endgame. Particularly in cases where Japan manages to take the Caucasus, or has parked a fleet in the Med, since they don’t have the black sea safe zone to build. This is the kind of thing that usually doesn’t become a factor until Moscow has fallen. In rarer instances it prevents the Allies from dropping on Ukraine/Caucasus (again usually after Moscow has fallen) in an attempt to sneak in a wedge, or see the formerly Soviet territory come under Western control.

In the opening rounds it prevents Germany from making amphibious drops into Ukraine, or attacking Caucasus directly, which in turn means that the Russians don’t have to defend it quite so heavily.

I think for game balance it’s probably better closed, though most players I’ve gamed with seem to leave it open. Whether you play Open or Closed, or with interceptors on, is something that should be determined before bidding for Allies, since it can have an effect on how the Russians open (e.g. how much emphasis they need to put on a Ukraine opener.) The Ukraine strafe/take by the Soviets is much more attractive, if there is no threat posed by the German transport in the med.