@KnowMad IIRC the next major Anniversary is next year in 2024 so maybe it will be released then.

IMO, 1942SE should be deprecated in favor of 1942 Third Edition which should be Anniversary Ed with some of the updated rules for AAA guns, etc. But that’s just my opinion; only Renegade knows what is in store for A&A.

@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.

@sensenschwarm thank you.Reprint.jpg

this rule was expanded in the reprint of anniversary edition - but not in the PDF Rulebook on axisandallies.com, and not in the FAQ/Errata, and in my physical copy of the original AA50, it is the version which I had quoted above.

The issue is resolved! Thanks alot! 🙂

Hi,

I’d just like a standard map for this version of the game thats not modded or has any personalization and thats not too big a file -I’ve seen some pdfs that scroll very slowly and thats not very useful.

@always-wanderer

That one looks great too! Thank you again for sharing these great resources!

@the-captain

Cool!

@tvarberg

Yes, Panther is correct. An important additional note is that the attacking transports may not unload during non-combat. Anything that is on board stays on board and remains vulnerable to sinking.

@tvarberg said in China - placing new infantry:

@panther said in China - placing new infantry:

Every power that will not be attacked and that maximizes (or at least tries to maximize) their IPC gains and unit builts will be able to achieve huge amounts of units

Yes, you are very right.
My point is just that the China rules to me are very unclear (in terms of Mobilize New Units)
And that you can just over come the “max three or more rule” by moving China’s units and make space for the new units.

Thought I misunderstood the rules, but seems like it’s not the case because basically we are on the same page in terms of the rules I can see.

You are correct. As long as there are no units in a Chinese territory, they can place up to 3 units there during mobilization. So if you move all units out of a territory, you can then place your new units there, and repeat this ad-nauseum.

It’s not overpowered though as Chinese units can not leave China, so if this is happening chances are Japan is ignoring China anyway (as they can easily go around and ignore it). So go ahead a load up those infantry in China. If they are being completely ignored by Japan (I frequently ignore China as Japan), they’ll sit there, completely useless.

My play group runs out of Japanese tanks. They usually get two IC’s in Asia, and go for the tank March to Moscow. I scavenged extra tanks and roundels from my original Axis and Allies game.

@victoryfirst
Never mind, I found it here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/3158/missing-setup-charts-look-no-more/27?page=2

@toblerone77 A bit late to the party here but anyway…!
The sculpts are made in a lighter plastic than later versions and the Japanese infantry sculpts, for example, really show this. Lots of them have half their helmets missing and their rifle stocks are too thin and are thus often bowed or malformed. Another example is Italian tanks which have smaller and far inferior sculpts to the europe 1940 version.
This is my favourite Axis and Allies version regardless and I have swapped out all the pieces with better sculpts from other version. Its probably cost me a fortune in potential re sales but I don’t care.

@vonlettowvorbeck1915 A couple of Chinese territories in the original version have dual Japanese and Chinese markers printed on them too.

@axis_roll Or the optional escorts and interceptors rule.

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@wanguskhan

They may reprint it again, preserving all the errors and the illogicially ordered setup charts.

Comp for WW1 is $350-600 now.

@sachmatkris

German bombers can’t reach the US east coast in a typical anniversary edition game.

Where are your german bombers taking off from at the start of their turn? Where are they landing at the end if your turn? How far are you allowing them to move in one turn?

I suspect this may be a source of your issue. In anniversary a small fleet is absolutely needed to cover a transport which is in range of enemy air units, but it is typically manageable. However, if you are giving air units freer movement than they are due it could very quickly unbalance the game.

@squirecam said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:

@the_good_captain said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:

@cernel I played three games against forum members that made a point to do this as Germany while I was the allies. After the final repetition and significant impact from the aforementioned, I had to insist on Escorts and Interceptors.

I consider it less significant than the USA bomber strategy but I’m confident enough to make it an axiom of my own axis strategy …and share it in a video, obviously.

The escort and interceptor rule is required for a fair game IMHO. Moreover, no bombing strategy succeeded in eliminating a country’s ability to build tanks and weapons during ww2, and certainly not without getting through fighter screens first.

This answered my question krieghund.