Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.

The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.

Not sure what happened to my post but here goes again. This is going to be less informative and more to the point as I don't have time and I spent some time on the post that seemed to disappear.

AA not meant to go the way it historically did

It is meant to accurately reflect the situation at the time.

Italy made a miniscule contribution. Performed so horribly, in Africa and balkans Germany had to do what they couldn't. Italy being so weak is accurate. Depending on how you see the turns in terms of time length, you can argue if they should be irrelevant on turn 1, 2, or 3.

As long as Germany can do its part and have a reasonable chance of taking North Africa, game is not broken.

It is way to soon to determine that.

Italy should be played by the German player in a multi player game.

You mean make a suckable, WW2 1940 suckie power not suck. Italy was meant to suck, just like France. This whole Italy sucking making the game broken is ridiculous. The real question would be what ability does Germany have to get in there and help. Or should they at all. Those questions can only be answered with years of play. Declaring the game to being broken this soon is beyond foolish, it's laughable.

With that said, I have been a player since the 1980's and understand how broken each new version was and how hard it seemed to be for them to fix it. No Pacific naval battles, China being to weak, (still is) ect...

The best we can hope for is to only have to slightly tweak the game for realism and fair play. For instance, letting China go first and perhaps a J1 attack being a mistake, now that Germany will feel the consequences in the Global game.

I completely agree that the game is broken. After all, not making the game so Italy can have a 50/50 chance of taking all of africa and making it very likely the Germans have to do it and regulating Italy to a subserviant role is completely broken. What were they thinking. It is like they were making a WW2 scenario in 1940 or something.

Oh and add the game being broken because of France too. I mean, really. France has no chance against Germany. Who would want to play France.

Please, someone tell me, what is a BB, DD, SS. If battleship, destroyer, submarine, where is the extra letter coming from

I completely agree that the game is broken. After all, not making the game so Italy can have a 50/50 chance of taking all of africa and making it very likely the Germans have to do it and regulating Italy to a subserviant role is completely broken. What were they thinking. It is like they were making a WW2 scenario in 1940 or something.

Oh and add the game being broken because of France too. I mean, really. France has no chance against Germany. Who would want to play France.

Ok, here it is. In AAREVISED. When they introduced artillery, Germany had a good reason to buy a good mixture of men, artillery, and tanks. If not, if they bought all tanks, unless they were playing against a Russian player who was worse than me, they lost. And planes were never purchsed unless in some extreme circumstance or again, playing off of other players lack of stragety. Tanks buy all others (except Japan) were rare and bad purchases. The odds largely favored men and artillery.

The points I have read about regarding Japan and tanks in the Revised version and before was not a problems of Tanks being to cheap, but by a horrific China and East Russia map that was obviously horrific. Unbelievable it took this long to correct.

I have played AAP40 a lot and see planes as a lot more usable the way they should be. To win a war you have to have great air power. If you are not buying as many tanks as planes. Something is wrong. I may be exaggerating a bit, but not  by  much.

I am still confused. This is the for the global 1940 game that is not out yet. Yet all the posts are about how to play a game not even out yet. They even appear to be about games that have been played. So I am assuming people are posting about AAE, the old version. But tanks were still 5IPC. I could be wrong. Also I didn't know you could put AAE AAP the old versions together.

If not, I seems people are talking about the Anniversary addition. Not sure why that is on this post.

The Alaska sea zone 1 is blocked from sea zone 2. The space between the Aluetian islands force you to make an extra movement. Is this just an error in the way it was drawn. If you are on the far west end of sea zone 1, can you move one space to sea zone 2. If you can that would mean you are traveling between islands and are traveling along the territory line, kind of crossing it.

The last point by Calvin just gave me a "huh" moment. All these post make absolutely no sense. The global or AAE game is not out yet. What the $#%^ is everyone talking about.

Some please explain.

Now I agree with the idea that tanks at 5 would make armored inf. pointless. However, maybe mech infantry should defend at 3, or maybe attack at 2.

Where I think tanks might make sense in the global game is this. The areas are so spread out, that being able to move an attacking power of 3 two spaces may make a huge difference requiring the buidling of some tanks. Movability may be that much more important. And may be more historically accurate in terms of cost structures for tanks to be that much more expensive. I do not know. Hopefully the manuever aspect of the global game, since it is so spread out, is so important, planes, even at the cost of 10 many make sense. As before, buying aircraft for most of the powers was ridiculous and inefficient. I have played AA40. I buy very few tanks for Britain. But that is only when they go on the offensive whick means the Japan player made some big mistakes. Otherwise, with Japan I do not buy them. The war is decided in the Pacific with the Dutch Indies and the solomon island areas. Once I take those and get the bonuses, the game is decided and we don't drag it out once I begin invading Australia and pushing against the Chinese.

Caveat: we just started playing with China going first plus getting 1 extra infantry per territory in exchange for Japan getting a double impulse attack on the islands only. I have played with these new rules as the allies only. It seems to make for a much more balanced game, (China was way to weak) and inserts some historical accuracy. I will play Japan with this alternative our next game. I can see how I might buy tanks under this scenario. However, my opponent never bought 1 tank. Although I did win, I am not sure him buying tanks would have made a difference. If I cannot win with Japan when I paly, we will slightly tweak the rules, but probably not by mich. We are considering limiting placement of artillery when purchases at the burma road entrance to China. Only placing infantry on territories Chaina had at the beginning of the turn and placing the US navy in Hawaii except the carrier which cannot move until th eUS is at War.

OK, i have an issue with this, Germany just buys tanks thing and glitches the game. Especially with IL. Although I was glancing through all the posts and it may be very old. I have not played the newest AA42, but have played revised and normal AA for 18 years or so. With the introduction of artillery in the revised, as far as pure fire power went, men and artillery are by far superior to tanks.

Understand, it is just the math. Nothing else. With the spaces being so close, if Germany just bought tanks, it would be a disadvantage. Russian buying all men and artillery versus Germany buying all tanks, Germany is at a disadvantage.

Again, I have not played the newer 1942 version, but if the set up allowed Germany to win to easily with buying all tanks at 5IPC, then the problem is not with tanks at 5, but with the 1942 setup. Tanks at 5IPC are at a disadvantage in fire power. Although the 2 movement provides some advantage, the lack of fire power is significantly lower. 5 artillery and 5 men buy far massacre 7 tanks. Not just by a little, but by a lot. If you play the odds in different ways, they come out the same. Every time a tank is lost at a attacking or defending power of 3, they get even more disadvantaged compared with an artillery or man loss of 2. The battles starts out with almost even fire power, tanks 21 versus arty's and men at 20. I have done the probability tests over and over again using different methods. And I don't mean rolling the dice over and over again.

I meant Germany slamming thier heads against Russia

That is an awesome rule. That is perfect. Historical and accurate.

One idea about IL's reasoning that makes sense that he has not to my knowledge expressed. I am a history buff. I read a lot and watch the History Channel and Military Channel. I have always had the sense that Japan, after 1939 did not want war with Russia. It needed the resources of the islands. Oil, rubber, ect... Without that it could not take out China much less Russia. The traditional axis and allies starts out with Japan having those resources. Once it got them, they might have decided to invade Russia. But why didn't they. They spent huge resources attacking the US, when they could have assitted the Germans invading from the rear. Why didn't they.

How about this. Germany was to Japan what Russia was to US. The enemy of my enemy. Nothing more. They wanted Germany to slam thier head against Japan while they grew stronger and stronger. So they hoped by attempting to take the entire Pacific. Invading Russia from the rear risked Hitler being successful and getting to Moscow first making him King of the Land. Like all dictators and thieves in an enemy of my enemy alliance, each tries to play it out so they end up on top.

Japan wanted the west to be in a protracted war while they prospered in an "Asia co-prosperity something or other".


Just my take on all the facts and opinions on the facts I have heard throughout my time.

The rule makes sense period. The fact is the decision to attack south won. So that is how the game is played.

It represents what was at a specific time chosen to represent the best balance of play. If you started the game at the end of 1944 and kept it historically accurate with the political and strategic forces in place, the Allies would win every time. If you start it at 1939 and ignore only the political forces in place, the Axis loses every time as the USSR, France, Britain, and the US could all declare war on Germany in 1939. 

The policital will to invade Japan on turn 1 when this game begins does not exist. A decision was made to go south and the game begins after that from what I understand. I understand that the arguement that the game was structure to make this a fools errand concludes that the rule is not necessary. I also understand that if by chance it has an unrealtic effect on the game if done demands that rule.

But for all of those arguing the need or sense for that rule, just do it. Who says you can't. If you want to suppose that the decision to try north again won out, go ahead. Who is stopping you. If you want to suppose that FDR was able to muster support for war without Pearl Harbor, or the moment France was invaded, go ahead. Who is stopping you.

I do not agree however with the tone of IL or comparing the idea of Japan attacking Russian right away with giving Germany the A-bomb or flying saucers right away.

As a moderator, I am assuming part of his role is to moderate and to stay moderate and not go to extremes. It only encourage others to be more so. It is like the pastor of a church using foul language. It would only cause the flock to do it more often.













or flying saucers. I am not sure what is setting hi off









or 1940, Germany would have lost quickly.